part II should be consulted. One can never have too much knowledge of

the situation and background in the countries concerned, if one is to see facts clearly in their historical context and interpret them correctly. Thus, more publications are mentioned in the notes for further study. Some figures concerning the membership of Churches are given in Appendix II, though they are of limited value. Many territorial changes took place in Central and Eastern Europe. Some Churches count as members all who were baptized, whether they ever attended services or not; others count <4> "communicants"; the Baptists do not count the children. But one will at least acquire a conception of the numerical strength of a certain Church.

An investigation into the question whether the non-Roman Catholic Churches kept silent, must necessarily have certain limitations. Firstly, no statement issued by a Church under the authority of the Pope are recorded in this book, with the exception, of course, of joint statements issued by Protestants and Roman Catholics, as was the case in the Netherlands. Thus I have recorded nothing from the Polish Greek Catholic Metropolitan Sheptitsky, or from the Maronite Patriarch of Syria, Mgr. Arida. [49] Secondly, this investigation is not concerned with the acts of individual Christians, unless they were leaders of the Church and clearly spoke in the name of their Church. [50] Thirdly, I have not recorded the contents of protests issued solely against the treatment of Christians of Jewish origin. It was certainly the duty of the Churches to do all in their power to protect those Christians, but this is not my subject. I am interested in what manner the Churches acted or failed to act on behalf of the Jews in general.

This book is first of all an attempt to draw up an inventory, rather than to draw up the balance-sheet. However, the fact that I have often had the privilege of lecturing on the subject to Jewish, Christian or mixed audiences, always followed by brisk discussion, encourages me to feel that I have correctly understood some of the problems and questions which arise.

The Introduction arrived only just in time to be printed. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Uriel Tal for his penetrating comment and questions. It stands to reason that our views need not agree in every detail, but <5> Christians should know that such questions as are raised in the Introduction are asked by many Jews. It is of the utmost importance for Jewish-Christian relations to discuss them as frankly as Dr. Tal did. <6>

I

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1 PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION

Commentators on the attitude of the Churches in certain lands frequently contradict one another. Some Christians, such as Rev. Niemoeller [51] and Rev. Buskes [52] for instance, pass a severe verdict on the Churches and include themselves also. It seems to me that at least one Jewish commentator gives too positive a picture about the attitude of the population in his country, Greece.[53] He may, consciously or unconsciously, have tried not to embarrass the people amongst whom he still lived when he wrote his book. But also the opinion of a Christian that "the hundreds of thousands of Jews that escaped the doom decreed for them owed their survival more to the rescue activities of individuals and private groups, above all the Churches, than to governmental resistance policy" [54], seems to me too favourable.

It must be difficult for Jews who know of anti-Semitic actions perpetrated by Church leaders throughout the centuries, and who personally suffered and lost their relatives in the holocaust, to believe that not merely a few "righteous of all Nations" but also Churches publicly and unequivocally spoke out against Hitler's murderous anti-Semitism. On the other hand, Christians are in danger of trying to whitewash the Church and ignoring the many instances when the Church failed. We all tend to forget our failures and to remember our victories.

Some commentators tend to forget how the actual situation was in those days. Indeed, it is difficult even for people who themselves lived through it, to project themselves back into the time when Hitler seemed all-powerful. Moreover, we now have the benefit of living after the events, and thus we know many facts, which were not generally known in those days. <9>

It seems unbelievable now, but in the summer of 1940, when some people somewhere in the Netherlands formed a resistance group, their leader stated that the British would not liberate us before Christmas 1940, and everybody present felt sorely disappointed. This kind of unwarranted optimism was fostered by many people throughout the war, and thus they underestimated the danger to the Jews and believed that, if German action against them could be delayed by some kind of compromise, much, and perhaps all, would be won. Many people in occupied Europe, in Great Britain and in the United States thought, that the information about the gas-chambers was "atrocity propaganda". The President of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. stated, on May 1, 1943: "What is happening to the Jews on the Continent of Europe is so horrible that we are in danger of assuming that it is exaggerated" [55]. We quote the following from "Unity in Dispersion":

"The undertaking was so staggering that, until the revelation about the Maidanek camp, a majority of the people in the United States as well as in England dismissed the facts of extermination as 'atrocity mongering'... It should be conceded, as extenuating circumstances, that never before in history had states descended to such depths of bad faith, deceit, and treachery as did Germany and some of her satellites in their resolve to murder. In 1942, tens of thousands of Polish Jews volunteered for cunningly disguised 'resettlement' and agricultural work in the territories recently conquered by the Germans in the East, and thus entered of their own accord on a road at the end of which destruction awaited them." [56]

The Germans tried to deceive the victims about their aims as well as the people amongst whom these victims lived, and they succeeded in this to a considerable extent. [57] <10> They had, in occupied Europe, all the instruments of mass communication, such as press and radio, at their disposal. All these and other factors are mentioned in "Unity in Dispersion" [58] in order to explain to some extent "the failure of organized Jewry to halt or even to slow down the most terrible catastrophe in Jewish history". Much of it is, mutatis mutandis, also applicable to "organized Christianity".

On the other hand, when the true facts became known, there was danger mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury: "It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened... There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about." [59]

We now are in danger of forgetting that so many other problems burdened people in those days. The British people were fighting their life-and-death struggle against the Third Reich, but were free. In the occupied countries, many young people were sent to Germany for compulsory labour; food was rationed and became more and more scarce. People went out in the night to cut wood illegally as there was hardly any fuel.

One cannot understand what happened in occupied Europe without remembering these things; neither can one understand, without realising the power of human egoism and the will to survive. No one who has never really been hungry, nor has been deprived of his liberty, can understand what it meant in practice to "love one's neighbour" during the Second World War. The persecution of the Jews was not the only challenge confronting the Churches in those days, though we only now can perceive better that it was the most important one. The list of steps taken by the Churches in the Netherlands shows the type of problems which faced the Churches: intercession in church services for the Queen; arrest of pastors; suppression of the Church press; compulsory labour for youth; requisition of church bells; deportation of labourers to Germany; closing down of the Bible Society; ban on Church conferences; death sentences: plea for mercy; deportation of students, and national-socialist education in Christian schools. [60] <11>

We tend now to underestimate the power of the Hitlerite terror. It has been said that all the Dutch should have blocked the railways with their own bodies, thus preventing the deportation of the Jews, because Hitler could not have murdered the entire Dutch population. I do not doubt that he could have and he would have done precisely that. [61]

It is not surprising then that many lay members of the Church and Church leaders were afraid, and therefore failed to fulfil their duties. Gerstein said, in Rolf Hochhuth's play: "A Christian in these days cannot survive if he is truly Christian". [62] Dr. Banning said: "If the Church had fully exercised the obedience of faith, no pastor or priest would have come out alive. [63]

But the greatness of the risks matched the appalling need to help: the Germans committed genocide. Whenever the Church remained silent in view of the holocaust, it was guilty. "Nevertheless a crime of such magnitude falls in no small measure to the responsibility of those witnesses who never cried out against it - whatever the reason for their silence." [64] Therefore, all the considerations mentioned above cannot exempt Churches, Christians or non-Christians, though they can help us to be fairer in our judgment.

One is sometimes in danger of becoming irritated by people who did not stand the test themselves, and yet claim to know exactly what should have been said and done. There recently appeared a book [65] in which the author sharply criticizes much what was done, or was not done, during the German occupation of the Netherlands. <12> He himself took a very active part in the struggle. Perhaps that is the reason why his criticism is not without compassion, and that it is to a large extent self-criticism. In order to understand how difficult it was to risk one's life or even freedom on behalf of others, one had to have been in it oneself.

I, who am now living in Israel, have sometimes, when lecturing on the subject, invited my audience to imagine for a moment that (God forbid!) some foreign power should occupy the land of Israel, say in the year 1980; and that this foreign power should deport many Jews for compulsory labour abroad, and also ration all food supplies, but that the Jewish part of the population should not risk their lives when complying with the demands of the enemy; that, however, the Christian minority in Israel should be deported and exterminated; that they should be deprived of their ration cards, that their identity cards should be stamped with a C, and that they must wear a yellow badge in the form of a cross, in order to distinguish them as Christians.

I then asked the question: "would you be willing, in such a situation, to hide my wife, one of my children or me, who all look very "Aryan", though you knew that, as in every community, you were in danger of being betrayed and in even greater danger of being given away by careless talk of other people? Or would you, if you were the Chief Rabbi, be prepared to denounce the anti-Christian measures publicly and unequivocally?"

2 FACTORS LEADING TO PUBLIC PROTESTS

There were many factors that led Churches to protest publicly. One of them is mentioned by the Executive Council of the Federal Council of Churches in the U.S.A. in 1941:

"No true Christian Can be anti-Semitic in thought, word or deed without being untrue to his own Christian heritance." [66]

But how often true Christians were untrue... <13>

The National Council of the Reformed Church in France made a similar statement, in September, 1942, declaring:

"A Christian Church would lose its soul and the reason for its existence, were it not to maintain... the Divine law above human contingencies." [67]

The Bible (the Old as well as the New Testament) was frequently cited in the protests. This may appear strange to people who only knew that the New Testament was used as a source of anti-Semitic influence. The same applies, by the way, to the Old Testament. [68] In my opinion, this use is quite indefensible. We list some of the texts cited in the protests:

"Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy. (Proverbs 31, 8-9).

Indirect reference, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, was made to Ezekiel 33, when the Church's office as Watchman is mentioned.

"When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: if when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head... But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel..." (Ezekiel 33, 2-4, 6-7). "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7, 1). "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25, 40). "We ought to obey God rather than man." (Acts 5, 29). "...and (God) hath made of one blood all the nations of men..." (Acts 17, 26). "There is neither Jew nor Greek...: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3, 28). <14>

In addition to this, the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10, 30 - 37) was quoted. It was frequently pointed out, though the wordings differ, that Jesus was born a Jew.

With regard to the Churches in the Netherlands, it has been stated that "the moral implications of Christian doctrine motivated the resistance of the Churches". [69] Such a statement seems to me to oversimplify matters. I believe that the Christian doctrine (or rather: the teachings of the Bible) demanded the resistance of the Churches, but it is always possible to find convenient excuses to escape a challenge, as for example the opinion that the Church should not interfere in political matters.

I once tried to convince a devout Protestant (he was an elder of the Church) that he should hide a Jewish child, by reminding him that one day he would have to give account of his deeds to the Supreme Judge. The man, who certainly could have hidden that child (he had a large farm) flatly refused, not because he denied that he would have to give account of his deeds, but because he was afraid, - too afraid to hide the child. I pointed out to him that he should rather fear God and not man, but my words simply had no effect.

Christian teaching did not work in this case, though that does not mean that it did not work in other cases. Chief Rabbi Safran spoke to the Rumanian Patriarch Nicodemus of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge [70], and in this case it worked, though there were probably other motivations as well.

Everybody's decisions are also motivated by the principles to which he adheres, and thus a Christian's decisions are influenced by Christian principles, though it must be admitted that mostly there are many other influences and motivations, probably more than the person who makes a decision, realizes. <15> The whole matter of the attitude of the Churches during the war was once discussed at a conference, and one of the speakers began by expressing as his opinion that Hitler and Eichmann were Christians, but later on he said that Mr. Johannes Bogaard, one of the "righteous of all Nations" who saved many Jews and whose father, brother and son were murdered by the Germans, was "just a courageous Dutchman".

I happen to know Mr. Bogaard very well and I am convinced that he acted as he did during the war, primarily because he is a committed Christian. Of course this does not alter the fact that many Christians did not do very much, if anything, on behalf of their neighbours, the Jews; nor should it be denied that many non-Christians did do what they could, out of national, socialist, humanist or communist convictions.

The same applies to the attitudes of a community. A member of a left wing kibbutz stated his views very clearly to me, and I know that many people hold views similar to his:

"Allow me to express my position which is based on dialectical materialism. The Protestant Churches were active everywhere according to the local circumstances, first of all according to the nature of the people amongst whom they lived. The Churches did not act in a vacuum. For instance, in the countries of Western-Europe, such as Holland, Norway and Denmark, where the 'final solution' met with the resistance of all sections of the population, the courageous stand of those nations found its vehement expression in the attitude of the different Churches. The non-Roman Catholic Churches merely reflected the opinion and reactions of the people."

It seems to me that there is more than a grain of truth in such a view and certainly no Church ever acted in a vacuum. Much in the protests issued by Churches in countries such as Bulgaria and Greece, points to nationalist rather than to spiritual-Christian considerations. Reading and analysing the contents of the statements may be of some help when assessing the motivations of Christians and groups of Christians who resisted the persecution of Jews. <16>

If, however, one indeed believes that everything can be explained by the influences of local circumstances etc., one should be consistent and stop holding Churches responsible for acts of anti-Semitism committed by Churches or by people professing to be Christians throughout the ages, for in such a case they were also "merely reflecting the opinion and reactions of the people amongst whom they lived". In the case of such a rigid determinism, it seems difficult to hold anyone anywhere responsible for his acts and decisions.

In my opinion we are all influenced by the people amongst whom we live, by social circumstances and by many other factors. We are all subject to a kind of mimicry, but that does not necessarily mean that we are just chameleons and nothing else. Churches are certainly influenced, just like any other group of people, by circumstances and surroundings, but they on their part influence these circumstances and surroundings. There is interplay of factors.

Similar to the opinion mentioned above is the viewpoint that Churches always tend to support the Establishment. The United States and Great Britain were at war with Germany, and the Churches participated in the crusade against the enemy. The same applies to Churches in occupied Europe, even when their own Government was in exile. I think that the Old Testament already gives us many examples of organized religion supporting the Establishment, but it also gives us some instances when religious leaders (the prophets!) refused to do so. [71]

It is doubtful whether the British Government was pleased with the Church's protest against the pogroms of the "Crystal Night", just after the Munich agreement. [72] The Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in the House of Lords and the Bishop of Chichester's letters to The Times, in 1943, must have embarrassed political leaders who were of the opinion that the main object was to win the war, and that attempts to rescue Jews were of less importance. [73]

The Swiss Churches could hardly be accused of supporting the Establishment, when they protested against the decision of the Swiss Government to return refugees to Nazi Germany who had illegally entered Switzerland. [74] Similar examples can be given regarding the United States, Sweden and other lands. The little that was said by the "Confessing Church" in Germany on behalf of the Jews was certainly not in support of the Establishment. <17> A Church must try to be the conscience of nation and Government, even though this may mean that its leaders have to speak out against the seeming interests of their nation. Churches frequently failed to do so, but we should refrain from generalizing.

Whenever Churches were conscious of belonging to a worldwide fellowship, this contributed to their making a stand against anti-Semitism.

Church leaders in the Netherlands followed the struggle of the "Confessing Church" in Germany, and were on the alert when they were challenged themselves. The Church in Sweden was moved to protest by the statement issued by the Church of Norway. Church leaders in Hungary realized, when they did not carry their protest before the Hungarian public, that this course would "incur... the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches" and stated that, if their intervention proved ineffective, they would be obliged "to testify before the congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world that we did not suppress the message of God". [75] Many of the Church leaders who took a clear stand, knew one another personally. [76] In view of the attempts of the Germans to deceive world opinion as to their ultimate aims concerning the Jews, and in view of the tendency to dismiss reports about what was going on as "atrocity propaganda", the importance of the information given by the World Council of Churches through its Press Service and by other means can hardly be overestimated. The need to combine efforts and thus break through denominational barriers in order to come to a joint stand, was understood in some countries. In the Netherlands, Protestants and Roman Catholics began a new chapter in their relationship by protesting together. In France and Hungary there was consultation between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but it is to be regretted that they did not achieve a common front. <18>

Sometimes there existed close contact between Christian and Jewish leaders, as for example in the United States, in Great Britain, in Bulgaria and between the leaders of the World Council of Churches and the World Jewish Congress, in Geneva. Thus, again, information about what was going on was communicated and action could be co-ordinated.

The negative implication is also clear: whenever a spirit of particularism, provincialism and isolationism was strong in a Church, it did not fulfil its duty toward the persecuted Jews.

3 RESULTS

In order to ascertain the practical effects that could be expected from steps taken by the Churches, the political and geographical position of the countries concerned, as well as the time factor, must be born in mind. Where there was a national Government, as was the case in Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, protests had a better chance of some success than in countries under direct Nazi control. Yet even then what Jeno Levai stated about Hungary was sometimes true:

"The Church was not in a position to promise or to threaten. Thus, in spite of their very best intentions, they could obtain only very little. Naturally this little meant life to the persons concerned." [77]

Typical were the differences between the Scandinavian countries: Sweden was neutral; Finland was an ally of the Germans; Denmark was occupied but it had its own King and was officially not even in a state of war with Germany; Norway's King had fled and the infamous Quisling had become Prime Minister. <19>

Geography also played an important role. The Jews in the Netherlands were in a deadly trap; Hungary was, at least for some time, a place of refuge for Jews in the neighbouring countries; Jews in Denmark and Norway had a chance to flee to Sweden and the Jews in France and Italy to Switzerland, in so far as that country was willing to admit them. The time persecution began was a vital factor. The earlier it started, the smaller the chance of saving at least some lives. It should be noted that these three factors were utterly unfavourable in Germany. It is difficult to assess the range of influence of any Church. Figures have been given about membership in Appendix II, but one must remember that many Churches have a high percentage of nominal members who, perhaps since their baptism, never attended a church service. Therefore it can be misleading to read that there were forty-five million Protestants in Germany, or, that 96,2 per cent of the population of Norway are members of the State Church. Only 5 per cent of the members of the Norwegian Church regularly attend Sunday services. In many other countries the situation is similar.

Many people who were not church goers may never even have known about the protests of the Church, and this is especially true of occupied Europe in those days, for there the Church could only speak from the pulpits, not through press and radio. Moreover, many nominal Christians are influenced by other outlooks on life, rather than by the Christian faith. However, when press and radio were silenced and the Church alone could voice an open and public protest, it met with the response of many people who were outside the fold. Church services were better attended than in times of peace. The former editor-in-chief of the Dutch communist daily De Waarheid relates that he went to a church service in those days:

That church meant something to us in those black days, were it only to listen to the prayer of a man, who dared make a public address on behalf of the people tortured in the concentration camps. [78] <20> I myself belong to the persons who, in those days, found their way back to the fold, attracted as we were by the Church's spiritual resistance to the Nazis.

When attempting to assess the practical results of steps taken by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of the Jews, we distinguish between countries under German occupation, countries under a satellite government, neutral countries, and countries that were at war with Germany. In countries under German occupation, efforts made by the Churches had hardly any direct practical result for the Jews in general. Personal intervention did not help or, at best, could only cause some delay in the deportations. The only step that had some effect on the Germans (as we now know!) was the issuing of a public protest.

Again it was evident, that the German authorities did not fear or have any step taken by the Churches as much as their protests which were read from the pulpits. Letters of protest they could throw in the dustbin or file away. They could listen to oral protests without taking them to heart. But they tried in every way to prevent public protests (in those days the only form of public protest), fearing their effect upon the people."[79]

The most effective protests were those, which clearly encouraged the faithful to help the Jews. Others called for non-cooperation with the Germans, and this had at least some result.

Six Roman Catholic police-agents at Utrecht informed their chief on February 24, 1943, that on the grounds of a pastoral letter read in their church on February 21, they would have to refuse if ordered to arrest Jews. Their chief threatened to dismiss them without pension and said that "those who do not announce their intended refusal and yet have the impudence to carry it out will be considered saboteurs, with all the serious consequences. The Germans immediately tried to arrest these agents but they had gone into hiding. The Germans then arrested their wives and children." [80] <21> Generally speaking, the positive indirect effect of public protests was, that it counteracted the attempts of the Germans to separate and isolate the Jews from the non-Jewish population, in order to break their will to resist deportation and annihilation. [81] It is impossible to count the lives saved through the activities of the Churches in the occupied territories. I agree with the opinion of Dr. Visser 't Hooft:

"So far we have only spoken of public protests. But were these protests implemented by deeds? The answer is that they were, though by no means as generally as ought to have been the case. The full story of Christian assistance to the Jews in their hour of great need will never be fully told, for in many cases individuals acted quietly and behind the scenes." [82]

In the countries under a satellite government, actions undertaken by the Churches were of some and sometimes even of much avail. [83] Concerning the neutral countries, the steps and protests of the Churches in Switzerland contributed to the relaxation of measures against the refugees [84], and in Sweden the Lutheran Archbishop encouraged his government to broadcast its willingness to take in the Jews of Denmark. [85] It is difficult to assess how far the protests of the Churches in countries that were at war with Germany had a practical effect. [86] They apparently helped to combat anti-Semitic influences in these countries (the same applies to protests issued in the countries mentioned above) and they contributed towards "breaking the wall of silence." <22> "The world wide public, overburdened with the issues and the incidents of a world conflict fraught with the gravest consequences, was not receptive to reports which it was ready to dismiss as propaganda tales; besides, the facts were hidden from it, not withstanding persistent endeavours by the (World Jewish) Congress to keep it informed. A wall of secrecy concealed the terrible tragedy... The main difficulty was how to convince public opinion and induce the Allied Governments to act. The battles of World War II raged fiercely on three continents, the onslaught of barbarity was nowhere decisively checked, the democratic nations feverishly tried to overcome their unprepared ness for a conflict of such dimensions. The Governments in Exile were chiefly concerned with the sufferings of their nations as a whole." [87]

The pressure exerted by Jewish and Christian leaders on their Governments did not, however, result in effective rescue activities being undertaken by these Governments.

It has been suggested that the protests from the Churches mostly came too late, and thus fell flat. This is partly true. The Protestant leaders in Hungary did speak out very late, and Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg sent his letters when there only remained a chance of doing something for the "privileged" Jews.

On the other hand, Churches or Church leaders in Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States began to protest in 1933. The Churches in the Netherlands protested at the very beginning of the German attacks on the Dutch Jews, in 1940. The Church of Denmark had prepared a public protest before the deportations started.

It is, however, necessary to keep the dates of protests in mind, in order to arrive at a fair evaluation of the moral courage which such protests required. After Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad, at the end of 1942, and the defeat of Rommel at El-Alamein, it became more and more clear that Germany would lose the war. The measure of success is in itself no yardstick for the moral value of a deed. One can hardly say that Church leaders in Rumania behaved better than Church leaders in, for instance, the Netherlands, because the former, contrary to the latter, actually succeeded in saving many lives. <23>

To this it must be added, however, that the seeming absence of any chance of success could not be an excuse for maintaining silence or for doing nothing against the terror of the Nazis. Prince William the Silent is said to have stated that it is not necessary to hope in order to try, nor to succeed in order to persevere.

4 HELP TO CHRISTIANS OF JEWISH ORIGIN

Apart from the 500,000 Jews who registered as members of their community in 1933, there were some 50,000 Jews in Germany who no longer belonged to the Jewish community. Though born as Jews, they had been baptized. In addition, some 210,000 people had at least one Jewish parent, and another 80,000 one Jewish grandparent; thus a total of some 340,000 people in Germany were, in addition to the "full Jews", affected by racial legislation. [88]

Until the end of the year 1938, Christian leaders and Churches tended to stress the necessity of helping Christian refugees of Jewish origin, rather than calling for help for Jews in general. A notable exception to this rule was the Appeal of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, in 1933, to help "Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees". [89] During the war, Churches in countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary and the Netherlands, instituted steps to protect their members of Jewish origin. It can hardly be denied that it was the right as well as the duty of the Churches to do so, but more than once the Churches were tempted to try and save their own members while neglecting the Jews in general. The announcement read from the pulpits of the Hungarian Protestant churches, on July 16, 1944, is significant:

"The Bishops... wish to inform the congregations that in connection with the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities..." [90] <24> A comment on the "Confessing Church" in Germany is:

"The Church took up the cudgels for the baptized Jews and that meant to the average churchgoer that the unbaptized Jew, i.e. the Jew as such, was left to the devil." [91]

Church leaders in the Netherlands regarded the issue as a temptation:

"Great dangers and temptations threatened continually. From the German side came the voice of the tempter: 'do not protest; only negotiate'. 'Do not speak on behalf of the Jews any more; then we shall be lenient to the Christians of Jewish origin.'... It is a great miracle that, in general, the Church recognized these voices as coming from the tempter, and boldly rejected the temptation." [92]

That these questions were very difficult indeed, becomes clear from the following comment of Herzberg:

"The baptized Jews [in the Netherlands], who were able to save their lives, owed this exclusively to the resistance of the Churches, a resistance which was especially impressive because of the principles by which it was motivated." [93]

Quite different, however, is the sharp verdict of Presser:

"And the Churches (in the Netherlands)? With what hesitation did they begin their resistance? How many were there, unfortunately, who were resigned to the fatal decrees of the occupying power, even appealing to texts in the Bible, and actually helping to carry out the decrees. How many times did they stand up only on behalf of baptized Jews and not on behalf of others." [94] <25>

It makes a difference, whether Churches on their own initiative stressed the importance they attached to the fate of Christians of Jewish origin, or were forced into a compromise by the tactics of the Germans. The latter was the case when the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH failed to read the telegram of protest publicly in the church services. [95] The Protestant Christians of Jewish origin in the Netherlands indeed survived. We should not pass judgment lightly and we must realize that we now have the benefit of being after the events, Church leaders in those days were not always aware of the fact that the Germans, who offered not to deport the Christians of Jewish origin, were not just making a concession, but were also providing themselves with a means of exerting further pressure on the Churches. It is most regrettable that on several occasions certain Churches interpreted the saying "charity begins at home" as they did.

5 "MERCY-BAPTISMS"

Christian clergymen in many lands were prepared to baptize Jews if the ceremony of baptism meant that lives could be saved. The following is related of the Lutheran Church in Slovakia:

"Many Jews who tried to escape persecution sought rescue by giving up their religion and by requesting to be received into the Evangelical Church, for the Catholic Church did not receive them. [96] The Evangelical Church did not refuse them, which was an act of courage in those days, but enabled them to become members of the Church... Here some examples follow: <26> In 1940, 20 persons, most of them adults, became Christians in Bratislava. For the year 1941 the number was 83; for the first half of the year 1942: 47 persons; for the second half: 7.828 persons were admitted in 1943; only 2 in 1944. In Horne Zelenice (near Hlohovec), 169 persons became Christians in 1942; 39 in 1943; in 1945 only one. In Frencin 120 persons; in Kochanovce (near Treucin) 45; in Banska Bystrica, 202 persons became Christians in 1942. This help aroused the anger of the rulers, of the Gestapo and of the Hlinka Guard. They began to arrest Evangelical Christians and pastors. 9 pastors were sent to the concentration camps in Germany. Joseph Bucko, minister at Martine, perished in the camp." [97]

It is reported that in Bulgaria,

"... Ministers of various Christian denominations engaged in mass 'mercy baptisms'; several of them were removed from office because of this (one of these ministers, with a community of about 200 souls, managed to baptize 200 additional persons between January 1 and September 1, 1940). High dignitaries of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church declared that 'conversion to Christianity' and 'formal baptism' were two different acts, the first of which necessarily preceded the second, sometimes by a considerable period; because the law spoke of conversion and not of baptism having to have taken place before September 1, 1940, Jews baptized later could also be saved if the minister declared that they had expressed their will to adopt Christianity before that date. Many courts accepted this reasoning. In this way, a number of baptized Jews and offspring of mixed marriages escaped the provision of the law." [98]

The following is quoted from the testimony of Richard Simantov: <27>

"... It must be admitted that, with a few exceptions, all the Christian religious institutions [in Bulgaria], as also their clergy, behaved with sympathy towards the Jewish victims of the anti-Jewish legislation. When issuing the required legal documents to the Christian Jew, the clerk of the court or the judge himself interrogated the priest, whether he had indeed carried out all the religious formalities, and how long the teaching of the catechism had lasted for the person of Jewish origin concerned. The priest would always reply in the affirmative and would declare that the man had received instruction for 3, 4 or 5 months, and that he regularly attended church services etc., although often these documents, which were issued by the Church, were given only in exchange for a payment, without the ceremony having been performed..." [99]

We have the following particulars about Greece :

"Many tried to evade the racial laws through baptism. More than 500 Jews embraced the Orthodox religion; some scores preferred to become Catholics. it was clear that it was not out of conviction that these Jews entered into the Church. It was well-known, that only the desire to escape persecution moved them to seek refuge in the shadow of the cross. Out of compassion, the priests did not hesitate to accept the new converts. They were on friendly terms with them in different ways. Out of noble feelings and not in order to receive a reward, the priests also distributed baptismal certificates to Jews who had never attended a church service..." [100]

The biographer of the Archbishop of Athens, Damaskinos, relates:

"Later on, when the persecutions started affecting the Jews of Athens, the Archbishop decided on the following measures. He summoned the Director General of the Administrative Services of the Community of Athens, Mr. P. Haldezos, and said to him: "I have made the sign of the cross and have spoken to God, and have decided to save as many Jews as I can, even though I run a great risk. I am going to baptize them, and you must give certificates enabling them to obtain the identity cards of Christian Greeks. Mr. Haldezos agreed to this. With the help of a Municipal official, they opened a register wherein they registered 560 Jews as Christians, all of whom were saved. There was no treachery." [101]<28>

Rev. J.J. Buskes discussed the considerations, which led clergymen in the Netherlands to provide Jews with false certificates of Baptism:

"We are well aware that many pastors had conscientious objections to giving forged baptismal certificates. But, thank God, there were other ministers who had conscientious objections about not doing so. Such a certificate was, of course, false. But the man who wrote it out and gave it to a Jew, did service to the truth and helped his neighbour. The one, however, who would not write it and thus refused help to a Jew, served falsehood and failed the Jew. There is a truth which is like a lie and there is a lie which is like the truth. God commanded us to lie in the service of the truth. Not the end, but the obedience to God's commandment (to love our neighbour as ourselves) justified the means. Thus the humble and scrupulous Dr. Oorthuis wrote in a pamphlet of the underground movement: even forged passports can be safe-conducts from the Lord, and stolen ration cards be gifts of mercy from God, which we accept with Thanksgiving." [102]

Many people may feel horrified when reading the views of Rev. Buskes. The same author stated in another publication:

"If I can save a man whose life is threatened by a scoundrel by saying to that scoundrel that two and two make five, I shall say so to him, in obedience to the ninth commandment. In such a case I am even prepared to declare that two and two make ten." [103]

A personal friend of mine, who is a devout Christian, took the oath declaring that a child in his house was not Jewish but his own child born out of wedlock. He saved the child. People who are horrified at such behaviour, probably never lived under German occupation. At any rate, they should remember St. Paul's saying: "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law". [104]

In my opinion, it was morally permissible and even laudable to baptize Jews in those days in order to save their lives, as long as it was mutually understood that this was in order to deceive the persecutors and that the baptism in fact was invalid. <29>

II

BEFORE THE WAR

6 HISTORICAL EVENTS

a. Hitler's Rise to Power - the Nuremberg Laws. (Jun., 1933-Sept., 1935)

President Hindenburg entrusted Hitler with the Chancellorship on January 30, 1933. The Reichstag fire, on February 27, was followed by a wave of arrests. The "Ordinance for the Protection of the People and the State", issued on February 28, suspended the sections of the Constitution which guaranteed individual and civil rights. The "Enabling Act" (March 23) stripped Parliament of its power and handed it over to the Reich Cabinet. Laws enacted by the Cabinet were to be drafted by the Chancellor (Hitler) and might deviate from the Constitution.

On April 1, Jewish shops throughout Germany were boycotted. Jewish civil servants were dismissed on April 7. On the same day the exclusion of "non-Aryan" lawyers was ordered. According to a decree of April 22, no Jewish physicians were allowed to work for sick funds anymore. At the end of April another decree restricted the admission of Jewish children and students to schools and universities. In the following months Jews were excluded from working in the fields of art, music, literature and journalism. The "Law on revocation of naturalizations and deprivation of German citizenship" (July, 14) robbed Jews, who had been naturalized before or had been born outside Germany, from their citizenship. In January, 1934, it was decreed that Jews could no longer be members of the Labour Front. When President Hindenburg died, on August 2, 1934, Hitler became President and Supreme Commander of the Army. On May 21, 1935, it was decreed that only "Aryans" could serve in the army.

It is estimated that 37,000 Jews emigrated from Germany in 1933; in 1934, the number was 23,000, whilst 21,000 Jews left Germany in 1935. [105] <33>

b. The Nuremberg Laws - Crystal Night. (Sept., 1935-Nov., 1938)

On September 15, 1935, two fundamental laws were adopted by the Reichstag meeting at Nuremberg. One, the "Law Respecting Reich Citizenship", decreed that only a national of German or kindred blood, who proved by his conduct that he was willing and likely to serve the German people and Reich faithfully, could be a citizen. The second, the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour", specifically referred to the Jews and singled them out as undesirable aliens, impure of blood and dangerous to the honour and security of the German people. There followed seven paragraphs, the first of which dealt with the prohibition of marriages between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood. Paragraph three prohibited Jews to employ in domestic service female nationals of German or kindred blood, under the age of forty-five years.

On April 26, 1938, it was decreed that all Jewish assets in excess of 5,000 marks should be registered. On June 15, 1938, about 1,500 Jews were arrested and deported to a concentration camp. On July 25, it was decreed that Jewish physicians were no longer permitted to treat non-Jewish patients. In the same month, Jews had to apply for special identity cards. On August 17, 1938, the first name "Israel" for Jewish men and "Sara" for Jewish women was made compulsory in addition to their own names. In October, all passports of Jews were stamped with the letter J. Austria had been incorporated into the Third Reich, on March 13, 1938. The German anti-Jewish laws were also enforced in Austria, where about 180,000 Jews were living. It is estimated that 25,000 Jews emigrated from Germany in 1936, and 23,000 in 1937. [106]

In March, 1938, President Roosevelt invited thirty-three governments to join in a co-operative effort to aid the emigration of refugees from Germany and Austria. On July 6, 1938, the Intergovernmental Conference met at Evian, France. Nearly all the delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees but were very careful not to assume any obligations on behalf of their Governments. <34>

It is important to keep some of the major political events of those days in mind. Italy attacked Ethiopia on October 3, 1935. In May, 1936, the Ethiopian emperor went into exile into Great Britain. On March 2, 1936, the Rhineland was remilitarized. On November 25, 1936, the anti-Comintern Pact with Japan was signed. On July 16, 1936, civil war in Spain broke out. On September 30, 1938, the Munich agreement was signed by Hitler, Chamberlain, Mussolini and Daladier. As a result, Sudetenland was occupied by Germany. Poland and Hungary also occupied part of Czechoslovakia.

c. Crystal Night - the Outbreak of the War. (Nov., 1938-Summer, 1939)

On October 28, 1938, 15,000-17,000 Jews of Polish origin were rounded up and expelled. On November 7, a seventeen-year-old Jewish boy, Herschel Grynspan, whose parents had been among the people expelled to Poland, shot Ernst vom Rath, a minor Nazi official in the Paris Embassy. He died two days later. This was the pretext for unleashing a pogrom that has entered history under the name Crystal Night: 7,500 Jewish shops were looted and windows of shops and houses were smashed; many synagogues were burned; more than 26,000 Jews were arrested, many of whom were sent to concentration camps; at least 91 were killed. [107]

On November 12, the Jews in Germany were ordered to pay a collective fine of thousand million Reichsmark. On November 15, Jewish children were dismissed from German schools. Jews were prohibited from visiting theatres, cinemas, concert halls, museums and public baths. On December 8, a decree was issued expelling Jews from the universities.

At the beginning of January, 1939, the "Aryanisation" of Jewish enterprises began. Since January 17, 1939, Jews were forbidden to be employed in the professions of dentist, pharmacist and veterinary surgeon. On January 30, 1939, Hitler publicly declared that the Jewish race in Europe would be annihilated if war broke out. <35> Hitler annexed Czechia, on March 15, 1939. Slovakia became "independent". In April, 1939, Mussolini occupied Albania.

From the beginning of 1938 until October 1, 1941 (when further emigration was forbidden) an estimated 170,000 Jews left Germany. [108] Jews in Germany at the beginning of the Hitler regime, numbered 499,682. The 1939 census, registered within the borders of the pre-Hitler Reich, amounted to no more than 213,930. [109]

7 GERMANY

The vast majority of the Protestants of Germany belonged to one of the 28 Landeskirchen (Lutheran, Reformed or Uniate), of which the largest was the Church of the Old Prussian Union, with 18 million members. The Landeskirchen were independent members of the German Evangelical Church Union, founded in 1922. In all, there were forty-five million Germans who were, nominally at least, members of the Protestant Church. In 1932, members of the Church who supported Hitler had founded the "German Christians' Faith Movement". These "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" demanded the creation of one Protestant Church, the application of the Fuehrer principle in Church affairs, the introduction of racialism within the Church, the "Germanization" of Christianity (the "Aryan Jesus"!) and the elimination of "Jewish influence" from teaching, liturgy and preaching. In 1933, some 3000 pastors belonged to this group. Church elections took place on July 23, 1933. On the eve of the elections, Hitler made an unexpected radio appeal asking the electorate to vote "GERMAN CHRISTIANS". They won a decisive victory.

On September 21, 1933, Rev. Martin Niemoeller and others created the "Pastors' Emergency League", which opposed the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS". In the beginning, Niemoeller's group was definitely in the minority. By December, 1933, its membership had grown to 6,000. Between the two groups, a majority tried to remain neutral while more or less sympathizing with the group of Niemoeller, but in practice obeying Hitler's orders without open protest. <36> After a protege of Hitler, Ludwig Mueller, had been elected as Reich Bishop under pressure of the Government, Niemoeller's opposition group constituted the "CONFESSING CHURCH" which declared itself to be the legitimate Protestant Church of Germany and set up a provisional Church government. [110] The "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" had, in the meantime, gained control in several Landeskirchen, sometimes with the active help of the national-socialist party. In April, 1933, the Landeskirche of Thuringia required of its clergy a formal oath of allegiance to Hitler; the "Thuringian Christians" wanted to give this symbol of unconditional obedience to Hitler as a birthday present. There was a division in other Landeskirchen, as for instance in the largest: the Church of the Old-Prussian Union. In the summer of 1933, a law had been issued forbidding the appointment of pastors or Church officers of "non-Aryan descent" and ordering the dismissal of such pastors and Church officers. [111] In its session on Sept. 5, 1933, the Synod of the Old Prussian Union accepted this law; the opposition party protested and, when this was of no avail, left the meeting. Later on the opposition organized the "CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union". <37>

It is not, as has been stated in the Preface, my intention to record the contents of statements issued by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of Christians of Jewish origin. It is of importance, however, to know to what extent the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" supported discrimination against these members of the Church, and, also, to know that the CONFESSING CHURCH defended them. Thus I mention the more important statements, which were issued, without recording their full contents. [112] There was sharp controversy and much discussion as to whether the anti-Jewish laws should be applied within the Church. The following persons and institutions protested against such a measure: the Theological Faculty of the University of Marburg (Sept. 19, 1933); the Theological Faculty of the University of Erlangen (Sept. 25, 1933); Rev. Martin Niemoeller (Nov. 2, 1933), and Prof. Rudolf Bultmann (Dec., 1933). On the other hand, the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" declared at the beginning of April, 1933, that only those who were "of pure German blood" should be admitted to the ministry. On May 26, 1932, they had already decided to consider Missionary work amongst the Jews as a great danger "as it is the entrance gate for foreign blood into our national body". The example of the Synod of the Old-Prussian Union (see above) was followed by other Landeskirchen, as for instance in Saxony, Thuringia and Braunschweig: ministers of Jewish origin were to be dismissed. The Church in Saxony even voted, on Dec. 10, 1933, to accept the principles of blood and race, and that only those who according to the laws of the State were compatriots should be members of the national Church! <38>

The decision of the Church of Saxony was publicly rejected by the Theological Faculty of the University of Leipzig, and by the Pastors' Society of the Rhine. The majority of the Theological Faculty of the University of Berlin, however, supported the racialism of the Saxonians. This all happened in the years 1933-1934. In those days, it certainly needed courage to stand up publicly for the rights of Christians of Jewish origin in the Church. It should be noted, however, that the publications mentioned above did not publicly oppose discrimination against the Jews in general, nor even discrimination against Christians of Jewish origin outside the Church.

In March, 1935, the CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union sent a "Word to the Congregations", which was read from the pulpits. We quote the following:

"We believe that our nation is threatened by a mortal danger. This danger lies in a new religion.... in it, racial and nationalistic ideology becomes supreme. Blood and race, nationality, honour and freedom become its idols. ... Whoever substitutes blood, race and nationality as the creator and source of authority instead of God, undermines the state." [113]

The Government struck back with arrests. 500 pastors were imprisoned.

* * *

After the notorious Laws of Nuremberg had been promulgated, only individuals in the CONFESSING Church pleaded for the issue of a public declaration. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said : "Only the man who loudly cries out on behalf of the Jews, is at liberty to sing the Gregorian chants". [114]

The "Council of Brethren" of the CONFESSING Church stated, in a declaration in defense of the right to baptize Jews, in September, 1935: "We only say the necessary minimum (alas, perhaps even not the minimum) concerning things about which we are not allowed to keep silent..." [115] <39>

The Provisional Church Council of the CONFESSING Church sent a Memorandum to Hitler, in May, 1936. We quote the following from it:

"... When blood, race, nationality and honour are thus raised to the rank of qualities that guarantee eternity, the Evangelical Christian is bound by the first commandment to reject that assumption. When the Aryan human being is glorified, God's word bears witness to the sinfulness of all men. When in the framework of the National-Socialist ideology, anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian obliging him to hate the Jews, he has nonetheless the divine command to love his neighbour..." [116]

The Memorandum, which was published in the foreign press without the consent of the CONFESSING Church, resulted in the arrest of Dr. Weissler who worked in the office of the Provisional Church Council. He perished in a concentration camp. [117]

On June 23, 1937, several members of the Reich Brethren Council were arrested, and on July 1, 1937, Rev. Martin Niemoeller also. He remained a prisoner until the end of the war. The office of the Provisional Church Council was closed by the authorities, and thus the CONFESSING Church was to a large extent forced into underground resistance.

* * *

No public protest was voiced after the Crystal Night pogroms. In September, 1938, an office for helping persecuted Jews, but mainly Christians of Jewish origin, was opened under the direction of Rev. Grueber. Rev. Grueber also contacted the Jewish and Catholic relief-organizations. Repeated journeys to Switzerland, the Netherlands and Great Britain were made to find places for Jewish refugees. <40>

At the end of 1940, Rev. Grueber was arrested and the office in Berlin was closed. The branches in Heidelberg, under Rev. Maas; in Breslau, under Vikarin Staritz; and in Kassel, continued to function, though under the pressure of fierce hostility. On the initiative of Rev. Werner Sylten, Grueber's deputy, an attempt was made to continue the work of the Berlin office on a smaller scale. Conversations with the Evangelical Church Council of Berlin took place; negotiations with the Gestapo were held. This eventually led to the arrest of Rev. Sylten, who perished in the concentration camp of Dachau, at the end of 1942. Only a few of the 35 members of Grueber's office, most of them of Jewish origin, lived to see the end of the war. Most of them died in the gas chambers. [118]

In Dec., 1938, the Kirchentag of the CONFESSING Church stated:

"... We again face the fact that many servants of the Church are being hampered in the execution of their ministry and are being expelled from their offices. In the hour of threatening war some fulfilled the duty of the Church, doing penance for the whole nation and beseeching forgiveness and deliverance from God's judgment. Thereupon, they were charged with high-treason. in view of what happened to the Jews others earnestly preached the Ten Commandments and were persecuted for it..." [119]

The Thuringian Church, followed by Mecklenburg, Anhalt and Sachsen (all directed by "GERMAN CHRISTIANS") promulgated (February, 1939) a law which eliminated Jews from membership in their Churches. <41>

In April, 1939, the infamous declaration of Godesberg was published. It accepted National-Socialism and stated that "the Christian faith is in irreconcilable opposition to Judaism". The declaration was accepted by the leaders of 11 Landeskirchen in which the "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" were the ruling party. The CONFESSING Reich Brethren Council sharply opposed the Godesberg declaration in a statement issued on April 13, 1939. One day later, it also opposed the law of the Thuringian Church (see above) which denied permission to Christians of Jewish origin to be members of the Church. The Reich Brethren Council stated:

"... The men responsible for these laws thereby show themselves to be enemies of the Cross of Christ. They cannot exclude anybody from the Church of Christ. They have, however, separated themselves from the holy Christian Church, by the promulgation of these laws..." [120]

The fundamental difference between "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" and the CONFESSING CHURCH is obvious: the former completely identified themselves with national-socialist racialism, the latter repudiated it verbally but showed weakness of action. One feared that, by an all-out intervention on behalf of all non-Aryans, the theological protest against the separation of Christian non-Aryans from the community of the Church would be politically misinterpreted, and that thus the intervention on behalf of them would become even more difficult. [121]

That the CONFESSING Church hardly spoke out at all was not the worst fact; it seems infinitely worse that the so-called "GERMAN CHRISTIANS" supported Hitler and his racialism. One may agree with the words of the German Lutheran pastors in England: "It is not for us who now live in safety to criticise those who, under fire, have done their utmost not to bow to Baal". The fact remains, however, that so many did bow to Baal. [122]

8 THE NETHERLANDS <42>

Before the second world war, no Church in the Netherlands publicly protested against German anti-Semitism, as distinct from Churches in Great Britain, France, Sweden, the United States etc. The following reasons for this can be given: 1. There was little co-operation between the Protestant Churches. 2. The Churches did not speak out publicly on any subject. 3. The spiritual life of many Churches was at a low ebb. 4. Many people were afraid of endangering Holland's precious neutrality and its economic interests with Germany. 5. Many Christians considered National-Socialism a bulwark against Communism. [123] The exceptions to the rule were provided by inter-denominational Church bodies. In April, 1933, the Dutch Council of the "World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches" adopted and published the following motion:

"The Dutch Council of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, aware of its duty to promote friendly relations among the nations, and convinced that the anti-Jewish measures taken and carried out in Germany must be regarded as a manifestation of racial hatred which considerably prejudices such an understanding, requests the International Executive Committee to define publicly its position with regard to these measures and, subsequently, to do everything in its power in accordance with the aims and principles of the Alliance, to disperse the tension and indignation which these measures have provoked in the Netherlands as well as in the entire civilized world, and to work towards the establishment of those relations which, according to the principles of the Christian conscience, ought to exist among the different races." [124]

This appeal to the International Executive Committee was successful. [125] The same Council also sent a letter to the "Permanent General Committee of the Dutch Israelite Community", informing them that they had heard with a sense of shame and distress of the treatment of the Jews by the German government on grounds of racial hatred. The Council expressed its conviction "that this hatred is contrary to the Christian conscience" and quoted the letter sent to the International Committee. [126] <43>

In May, 1933, a Manifesto was published, signed by many individual Dutchmen, denouncing anti-Semitism. [127] In the same month, Christians of Jewish origin turned to the "Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH", requesting that on one particular Sunday the Jewish question should be the main theme of the sermon. The Committee replied that "they were convinced that it is the duty of the Church to pay attention to Israel and pray for it, but that in the present circumstances it would not be wise to set apart a special Sunday for this purpose". [128] On May 23, 1933, a public meeting of protest was held. Amongst other speakers was the Rev. J.J. Buskes, who later became one of the leaders of Church resistance during the war. He then spoke "as a member of a Christian Church". Dr. W. Banning also protested against the Nazi terror, "in the name of Socialism and of the Gospel". [129]

* * *

On September 19, 1935, a meeting of protest was held at Amsterdam. There were three Protestant speakers, one of them, Rev. J.J. Buskes. [130] In 1936, the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands declared that members of the Church who were members of the Dutch National-Socialist Party, must be advised to terminate their membership of the party. If they would not heed this admonition, they must be barred from participating in Holy Communion. This measure was maintained throughout the war. The report to the Synod on the N.S.B. (National-Socialist Movement of the Netherlands) says:

"Even though the N.S.B. rejects idolization of the race, the manner in which it stresses in its Program the unity of the Aryan race [131] shows, that it is not blameless in this respect." [132] <44>

A Protestant Committee for help to Protestant refugees of Jewish origin was formed on May 5, 1936.

* * *

In 1938, 7,000 Jewish refugees were admitted into the Netherlands. The Government was of the opinion that Holland could not bear too heavy a strain on the labour market. The Protestant Prime Minister declared: "If an unlimited stream of foreign Jews were admitted, public opinion regarding the Jews will take an unfavourable turn". [133] Thus the border was closed and Jews who had "illegally" entered into Holland were sent back to Germany, unless they could prove that their life was in danger there. Of course it is easy to be wise after the event, and in those days it was not yet clear to everybody that the life of all Jews in Germany was in mortal danger. The fact remains that these inhuman measures were taken by a Government of which most of the members were professing Christians. And no Church protested. Prof. D. Cohen states:

"Our Committee [for help to Jewish refugees] had clashed vigorously with the Government on this point, notwithstanding our good relations and good co-operation with it. However, we had public opinion with us." [134]

The last part of his statement is doubtful, at least regarding a large section of the Protestant press. [135]

A national collection was held on December 3, 1938, and recommended by the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:

"The Committee, concerned about the bitter sufferings resulting from the persecution of the Jews, considers it to be the duty of the Church to practise Christian mercy. It urgently recommends that all local churches should take up a special collection, on behalf of the victims of this persecution, so that their suffering may be alleviated." [136] <45>

Here help to the persecuted Jews in general was recommended, not just to Christians of Jewish origin. In November, 1938, the Executive of the Dutch Ecumenical Council turned to the World Council of Churches, Geneva, requesting it to organize immediate action on behalf of the German Jews. [137]

9 BELGIUM

The Protestant Churches in Belgium are minority Churches, together comprising less than half a percent of the population. The following statements are all from the year 1933. To the best of my knowledge no other statements were issued after this year. On April 4, 1933, the Federation of Protestant Churches of Belgium sent the following letter to Dr. Kapler, the President of the Protestant Federation of Germany:

"The Federation of Protestant Churches of Belgium has directed us to send a fraternal message to the Protestant Federation of Germany. We would ask you, Mr. President to accept it in the same Christian spirit, and to do us the honour of transmitting it to your Executive Council. We are much distressed by the events of recent weeks during which the German Jewish population has been subjected to discriminatory measures; the situation threatens to deteriorate even further. Our German co-religionists, imbued with a sense of justice, must certainly be equally distressed by these excesses. It certainly cannot be pleasing to them that, in most countries, spontaneous public opinion has espoused the cause of German Jewry. We would therefore ask you, Mr. President, if it would not be possible for the Federation of German Evangelical Churches itself to intervene, discreetly as they may deem fit, on behalf of the German Jews so that they may be reinstated in all their rights of citizenship. Would it not be a great triumph for the spirit of tolerance, which is certainly a Protestant attribute? Would it not mean a re-establishment, in the eyes of the world, of that reputation which your country has enjoyed for so long, of being a highly cultured country? May one not say that German Jews have, up till now, been much attached to their country; that they have added to its distinction in the field of science, art and literature. <46> In short, that they are known for their adherence to the principles of freedom of conscience? Inspired as we are by purely Christian and humane sentiments, we have no doubt that you will accept the above message in the spirit of grace." Yours faithfully, Henri Anet, Secretary; A. Rey, President. [138]

This letter was certainly not lacking in courtesy and we get the impression that it was written in a spirit of moderate optimism. Apparently it was some months later that the President of the Synod of the Evangelical Protestant Churches of Belgium sent the following letter to the Chief Rabbi of Belgium:

"Time has passed since, during the first explosion of hate throughout Germany, it might be supposed that a period of calm would follow. But according to accounts in the press, it seems that a general and lasting exclusion of all Jewish intellectuals cold-bloodedly continues. This illegal and cruel oppression of a highly respectable minority shows that the new Germany is descending into a mental attitude fit only for the Middle Ages. The destruction of such an out-grown mentality had been, until now, the noblest work and the most imperishable glory of the new spirit of the last four centuries." [139]

Even more outspoken was the address of Rev. Schijns, the President of the Federation of Protestant Churches, at a Meeting of Protest in Bruxelles, on April 6, 1933:

"You have heard the lay protests against anti-Semitic persecutions in Germany. You have heard the Catholic protest. May I be permitted to speak on behalf of the Protestant Churches of Belgium. It is true that the voice of Christ, who clearly proclaimed the inviolable rights and imperative demands of justice, has not always been listened to over the centuries; on many occasions Christians themselves have had recourse to violence; I cannot forget that in the 16th century my ancestors, the Huguenots, and the Beggars, [140] also suffered cruel persecution... Nevertheless, thanks to a clearer understanding of the demands of the Gospel, as well as to the progressive evolution of the lay conscience, we had become sincerely convinced that henceforth violence, which was unanimously condemned by public opinion, is morally inconceivable. Yet now we discover that violence has been 'honourably' reinstated, so that even today it is still attacking innocent victims." <47> We never supposed that, in our times, any person, on religious grounds, could be accused of a political offence! Yet, now we hear that in Germany a religion (the Jewish religion) is being formally and coldly proscribed, by the civil authorities. This inhuman attitude, inspired by a narrow, sectarian nationalism, stands in absolute contradiction to the Gospel: it is a monstrous heresy, which cannot but dwarf all other crimes. The ancient Jewish law contains the following beautiful maxim: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might'. It is therefore with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my might that I deliver here, in the name of my Protestant co-religionists, a message of vigorous and profound sympathy for all innocent victims of violence. The sufferings of today, like those in the past, tragically illustrate the struggle of brute force against the forces of the spirit. But just as moral strength has triumphed in ages past, we are sure that to-day also, by virtue of an eternal law, victory lies with the powers of the spirit!" [141]

10 FRANCE

Though a small minority, numbering altogether not more than 800,000 souls, the spiritual sons of the Huguenots early and unequivocally protested against the persecution of Jews. They themselves had been persecuted.

Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the Protestant Federation of France, sent the following letter to the Chief Rabbi of France, in 1933:

"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France which reassembled to-day, for the first time since the beginning of the period of the great sufferings of your coreligionists in Germany, has asked me to assure you that the Protestants of France whole-heartedly associate themselves with the indignation of their Jewish compatriots and with the distress of the victims of such base fanaticism. The spiritual sons of the Huguenots are stirred with emotion and sympathy whenever a religious minority is persecuted. They are well aware how much Christianity, and in particular the Reformed Churches, owe to the prophets who paved the way for the Gospel, and feel afflicted by the blows descending upon their Jewish brothers. May God help your sorely tried co-religionists to find in Him their strength and consolation, as did their frequently persecuted ancestors. May He impart to you, and to the Jews of France, the secret of soothing pain and reviving hope. <48>

I wish to reassure you, that we are certain, that all our Churches will unite, during the Holy Week, in fervent intercession on behalf of the Jews of Germany." [142]

In the same year the following letter was sent by Rev. Cleisz, Honorary President of the Consistory of the Reformed Churches of Lorraine, to the Chief Rabbi of Nancy:

"You will hardly be surprised to find me among those who energetically protest against the wave of anti-Semitism in Germany, which has cast so many Jewish families in distress. I abhor fanaticism, whatever its source, and am dismayed to observe in the middle of the twentieth century such an excess of folly. Therefore I join whole-heartedly with those who protest against such a tyranny. I wish to assure you of my deep compassion for so many human beings overcome by grief..." [143]

Rev. Wilfred Monod sent the following letter to the French Committee for the Protection of Persecuted Jewish Intellectuals:

"Allow me to express my feelings of relief at the thought that France is offering hospitality to Jews escaping from the darkness of a new Mediaevalism. Although Jews were crushed by the great Empires of the West; later becoming the vassals of the anti-Semitic Kings of Egypt and Syria; politically annihilated by the Romans; hated by the Moslems; persecuted by the Church; held in public disdain; treated as a stateless and homeless people even in the twentieth century, and sometimes deprived of their civil rights in the countries in which they were dispersed; the Jews have not disappeared as did the Phoenicians or the people of Nineveh. Without territory, without government, without currency, without flag, Abraham's race has kept itself alive. What marvellous obstinacy! What supernatural tenacity! In spite of all this, Judaism has given the human race that mysterious Book which maintains alive on this earth the inextinguishable flame of a universal, international ideal, the world-embracing ideal of human catholicity. Israel has bequeathed to men the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the Messianic vision of the Kingdom of God... On 29th August, 1914, up in the Vosges, one of our Catholic soldiers, mortally wounded, asked for a crucifix, and it was the Jewish chaplain who brought him this venerable symbol, some minutes before he himself gave up his soul in the arms of a Jesuit priest. This happened on a Saturday, the holy day of the Jewish Sabbath. Welcome to the representatives of the wandering nation! On French soil they will find a place to rest their head." [144] <49>

On April 17, 1933, a Protest Meeting was held at Lille. Rev. Bosc was the Protestant spokesman, speaking in his "triple capacity as a human being, a Frenchman and a Christian". We quote the following:

"... Finally, to protest against the persecutions and victimisations of the Jews is a task in harmony with the spirit of Jesus Christ, and here I thank Monsieur l'abbe who has just sounded forth a note of profound truth. Everyone of us knows that the spirit of Jesus Christ is the spirit of peace, the spirit of justice, and more than that: the spirit of brotherhood and of love. It is the spirit which to-day imbues all moral and social systems in the world, so that Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the unrivalled ruler not only by Christianity as a whole but also by all mankind... The spirit of Jesus Christ which, Ladies and Gentlemen, means the spirit out of which are woven the dreams we have of a better future for mankind, the dreams we dream when, surrounded by all sorts of iniquities and by all kinds of ugliness, we nevertheless look towards some glorious dawn! The spirit of Jesus means that spirit which will triumph because it is the living truth. It is in my triple capacity as human being, Frenchman and Christian that I fully pledge my entire, conscious support to this movement of truth in its efforts to infuse a little justice and kindness into mankind, against the attempt to lead humanity back to the night and the iniquities of the Middle Ages, from which it began to emerge." [144]

* * *

On November 20, 1935, a Meeting of Protest was held in the Hall of Chopin, Paris. Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the Protestant Federation of France, said the following:

"... Since I am here representing both Christian and Protestant France, I should say that in the light of what is going on in Germany - whether it be the persecutions of Jews or of Christians - it is impossible for us not to add our most energetic protests to those you have heard so far.

What Christianity Owes to Judaism

"Christianity, as has been indicated by President Reynaud, is essentially a universal creed. Once one believes in Christ, whatever one's denomination may be, it is impossible not to subscribe fully to the words of that Jew of olden times St. Paul, the apostle, who having plumbed the depths of Christ's thought, exclaimed: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus'. (Gal. 3, 28). This is the basic tenet on which, since July 1933, all preaching in the Churches of Germany has been practically proscribed. <50>

First I wish to state that what has shocked and appalled Christian conscience, what has provoked protests from one end of the Christian world to the other? Protests which will certainly be reiterated and increased - is precisely the fact that this new gospel of racialism already has been applied to the Jews, and seems to have reached its culmination point in the Nuremberg Decrees. One cannot know whether even worse may not happen later on. I have met many Jews who had been driven out of Germany since the Hitler revolution, and when I went to Germany as recently as this year, on two occasions while travelling through a large part of Germany, I could not but feel intensely moved on seeing, at the entrance of villages and towns, large signboards forbidding access to the Jews; and on many trees along the roads, posters full of insults against them. Christian as I am, and knowing what Christianity owes to Judaism, I know that the Church of Jesus Christ is the daughter of what it calls the ancient Church of Israel. The Protestant in me knows what the Gospel owes to those prophets who, beginning eight centuries before Jesus Christ, have presaged the universalism which the religion of Christ would later proclaim throughout the world. Did not Isaiah welcome the day when all nations would flow unto the mountain of the Lord? And others after him, such as Jeremiah, did they not show their people, the only people ever elected, the road by means of which they were to bring to others the revelation which had been bestowed upon them, so that all nations might come to know the true God? The Gospel is the heritage and fulfilment of that great hope of the prophets. It is impossible for a Christian, when he sees the infamous crusades conducted against Judaism, not to be among those who declare that they are unable to forget what they owe to the Jewish people. We are among those who remember all this with deep gratitude. We believe that this gratitude, in view of the suffering of this people who are being crucified once again, ought to be shown in acts of sympathy and solidarity.

Racialism inside the Christian Churches

"The gospel of racialism of which you have just been told does not rear its ugly head solely outside the Church, but also inside the Christian Churches. Since July 1933, under the pretext of rallying the whole of Germany round the doctrine of racial superiority - you have seen the outcome of such teaching - and of purity of blood, they have begun to persecute those who are not 100 percent Aryan, even inside the churches. I was in Berlin in July, 1933, and there, where every wall might have been equipped with a hidden microphone, I met one of the most representative personalities of the Evangelical Church of Prussia. He informed me of what had been happening during the last few weeks. He said that he had felt compelled to resign from the high position he had occupied in the German Church, even though his resignation would mean a considerable financial sacrifice. He and those who were thinking and acting like him were now unable to speak, to write, to telephone, or to do anything whatsoever. <51> "But," said he, "how could I have agreed to go and tell the young Evangelical pastors whom I ordained two or three years ago, that they are not fit to preach the Gospel or to carry out the duties of their ministry, simply because they have a Jewish grandmother or grandfather? This problem of the non-Aryam has since then caused much anguish to many men who are pastors or simply beadles. The new gospel has made its appearance in the Church, propagated, preached and spread by groups calling themselves the 'Deutsch-Christliche' or the German Christians. It is necessary, they claim, to expel from the churches and from all church posts, in every denomination, those men who are not of absolutely pure Aryan blood for three or four generations back.

The Church Resists

"This has resulted in unbearably painful conflicts. It should be acknowledged that tremendous pressure was exerted by the State authorities as well as by the pressure of the opinion which increasingly tends to assert in religious circles that Adolf Hitler was the man through whom Germany was able to re-establish herself. in spite of all this, however, there have been instances of Catholic and Protestant consciences refusing to bow and submit. Resistance was organized in the Catholic Church, where the warning bell to the conscience of Christians was rung by that admirable man, the Cardinal Archbishop of Munich. In the Protestant Church, the great voice of the theologian, Kar1 Barth, and the voices of many others, have been raised to rally Christian consciences to their call. A completely new Confessing Church has sprung up comprising more than half of the pastors in Germany, quite apart from those who are still hesitating, because they must make a living, and, therefore, ask themselves what will happen to-morrow. About a thousand pastors have placed themselves behind Bishop Mueller, the 'German Christian', whom you, Mr. Paul Reynaud, have just mentioned.

The "New Gospel"

"It is not only through the persecution of the non-Aryans that the desire has arisen amongst many Germam to preach a new gospel, but because of a claim to meet Christ on a new basis, particularly on the basis of the glorification of the German race and blood. The most extraordinary statements have been made. Paganism has asserted itself on the fringes of the Church and its influence gradually has pervaded it. An effort even has been made in certain churches by pastors imbued with the spirit of national-socialism, to have the Old Testament - containing the magnificent history of the Jewish people and I even would say, of God's great acts toward the Jewish race - banned and barred from religious instruction. Included also is that moving page in the first book of your Bible, and ours - note this, any Jews who may be listening to me - where we are told that Abraham went so far as to be ready to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, to God!

"Never will the Churches Agree..." <52>

"Subsequently there have been attempts to make peace with the Churches, and the papers during the past few weeks have brought us news of 'peace feelers' offered to the Churches. Negotiations were envisaged both with the Catholic Church and with the Evangelical Churches. But they never will induce either true Catholics or Protestants, to put as a Gospel source, an affirmation of the superiority of the German race over the others, nor a denial of anybody's right to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. They may again start their persecutions, and I think they will. They may chase pastors and priests from their churches and send them to concentration camps. They may resort to petty annoyance and to persecution; however, I am absolutely convinced that the Christian conscience has been aroused. Perhaps this experience was necessary to awaken it out of a certain stupor? The Christian conscience will absolutely oppose the events which have succeeded each other which such rapidity over the past few years and any attempt which may be made to persuade the Churches in any way to insert into the Gospel (which desires that all men should be considered the children of God and be reconciled in universal brotherhood) an addition which asserts that some shall rank first and others may be excluded. Never will the Churches agree that the Gospel of love, symbolized by the two arms of Christ extended on the cross, will be replaced by a gospel of race and blood. I am convinced that by affirming our sympathy with all in Germany who are being persecuted for their views, and with all in the Christian Church who make efforts to resist (as I have tried to show) the determined attempt to lead them onto the ground of racial discrimination, we are helping them in their resistance. We are helping them to discover that there is a Christian, as well as, a merely secular public opinion, throughout the entire world, which is aware of all that this resistance implies in the way of present sacrifice, and perhaps of still more suffering in the future. Let us therefore be among those who by word and example give evidence of that sympathy and solidarity. Let us unite here, as Mr. Paul Reynaud has asked us to do, without distinction of religious, philosophic or even political convictions, in protest against the besmirching of justice and the dignity of man." [145]

* * *

The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, in its session of November 29, 1938, unanimously adopted the following Resolution:

"The Council of the Protestant Federation of France, reassembled for the first time since a terrible crime has provided a pretext for new persecutions against the Jews, feels itself to be the mouthpiece of all the Churches which it represents in our country, in making a solemn Protest against a similar outburst of violence and cruelty. <53>

The Christian Churches will betray the message entrusted to them, if they do not unreservedly condemn racial doctrines which are contrary to the teaching of Christ and the apostles; and if they do not express their utmost disapproval of the barbaric methods by which such doctrines are practised..." [146]

In the light of "the serious problem confronting the authorities by the arrival on French territory of numerous foreigners who had been expelled from their own country by persecution", the Council of the Protestant Federation in France instructed "all Protestant Frenchmen" as follows:

1. To aid the Government - in determined resistance to any suggestion of violence, wherever it may come from and in whatever manner it expresses itself - to solve so complex a problem in a quiet atmosphere and with respect for human dignity. 2. To contribute as much as possible, by their gifts and by their co-ordinated initiative, for the relief of the terrible distress which they are witnessing and which makes its appeal to them. The Council draws their attention to the existence of a French Committee for Protestant Refugees, Aryans and non-Aryans, which is now functioning and to which financial contributions can be sent... [147]

11 SWITZERLAND

The Protestant Churches of Switzerland are cantonal Churches, distinct and independent from one another. In most of the cantonal Churches, the legislative body is the Synod and the executive organ the Synodal Council. The Federation of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland at first consisted only of National Churches, but it soon admitted the Free Evangelical Churches, the Methodist Church and the "Evangelische Gemeinschaft". The Federation has 2,888,122 baptized members. At the beginning of April, 1933, the following Declaration, signed by 21 Protestant ministers, was addressed to "various Protestant Ecclesiastical groups in French-speaking Switzerland":

"Moved by the present situation of the German Jews, and unable to understand how the authorities, otherwise attentive to moral values, can ignore the right of freedom of conscience, and of work, as well as security to every human being, we, the undersigned, think that the time has come to draw the attention of Christians to the serious implications in an attitude which is the very negation of the evangelical spirit; a spirit which is synonymous with love, freedom and mutual assistance. We expect the Churches to raise their voices in order to claim for the Jews the same degree of justice, which it is their duty to demand for every oppressed minority." [148] <54>

On May 31, 1933, the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton Vaud sent the following letter to the President of the Council of the Federation of Protestant Churches of Switzerland:

"We beg to bring to your attention the fact that the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton of Vaud, at its annual meeting at Lausanne, unanimously resolved upon the following Declaration, which we now submit to use as you see fit. "Moved by the news which has reached us from Germany concerning the numerous and regrettable restraints imposed upon the freedom of conscience, and, in particular, concerning the ill-treatment of the Jewish population of that country; "and with the conviction that the Gospel of Jesus Christ constitutes an affirmation of freedom and love among the races of mankind; the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton of Vaud, assembled at Lausanne, unites itself with all protests raised in favour of freedom of conscience and respect for the Jews of Germany." [149]

In September, 1933, the Protestant Churches of Geneva published the following Declaration:

"Events shocking and hurtful to a sense of justice are mounting in Germany and have repercussions here. Men are persecuted for their opinions. Dismissed, boycotted, ostracized, they are suffering as in the days when neither freedom of thought nor of conscience were tolerated. The mere fact of belonging to the Jewish race, even if only by descent, frequently incurs implacable treatment. These actions have given rise to protests in numerous countries and in the most varied circles. Here too, our Christian conscience has been roused. It would be dangerous to consider ourselves better than others. Intolerance and injustice have their roots in our own soil. We must be on our guard. Several papers make appeals for violence. The seeds of discord are being sown among our people. Anti-Semitism, which until now has been foreign to us, now finds its advocates among us. Members of our Churches, also, forgetting that the same blood flows in all mankind, and that, before God our Father, we are all brothers, have been swayed by the passions of these times. Let us not permit a spirit incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ to take root in our country." The National Protestant Church of Geneva; the Free Evangelical Church of Geneva; Evangelical Christian Association; the Committee for Popular Evangelism; the Council of the Methodist Church. [150] <55>

It is striking that the declarations and resolutions issued in Switzerland, so many times mention the danger of anti-Semitic influences within the country itself, and sometimes within the Church. [151]

* * *

On November 14, 1938, the Church Council of Canton Zurich addressed the following public letter "To the Reformed People of Zurich":

"In indignation and horror we recently have witnessed, in the state neighbouring us to the north, that Jew baiting has erupted and, in its dimensions, surpassed the severest atrocities yet experienced. We feel in spirit united with all our brothers and sisters in the neighbouring country who, whatever their attitude toward Jewry may be, deeply deplore such injustice, yet they must keep silent on the subject. We must not be silent. We must consider it a Christian obligation to cry out against it, not only within our church walls but to the world at large. It is a terrible injustice to exterminate, by all conceivable means, a nation which possesses, as does every nation, the right to exist. It fills us with deep humiliation and shame to discover in a country living for centuries under the influence of the gospel and of Luther, that sentiments of passionate hatred can break out and boil over against a small racial and religious minority, and that all humane and Christian feelings be suffocated. It plainly shows us, to our horror, what human hearts are capable of when racial hatred and blind raving passion win the upper hand, drowning the voice of justice, mercy and goodness. Can we Swiss suppose that we are immune against such frenzy? But are not the same dark powers active within our own people, openly at times and sometimes secretly, confusing conscience; stirring passions; igniting racial hatred? It pains us that consideration for so many unemployed citizens in our own nation prevents us from offering a protecting asylum to the suffering refugees, who, like wild game, are chased from country to country. <56> At least let us do for them all that is in our power! When in the next few days a general collection is made for the benefit of these refugees, among whom are not a few who, although Jewish by birth, are of the Christian faith and thus a part of the Evangelical Church, let us open our hearts and hands and express loving-kindness towards these remorselessly persecuted people. Let us close our hearts to all feelings of unchristian racial and religious hatred. Neither hate, slander, oppression nor violence, but Jesus Christ's love alone is capable of bringing longed for peace to restless humanity. But above all, let us pray to the Almighty that He will protect all those who are persecuted, and that He will save our Swiss people from the disgrace of an anti-Jewish campaign and deliver us, and all nations, from the forces of violence and injustice, and bring His Kingdom of justice, love and peace." [152]

Again (as in 1933) the danger of anti-Semitic influences within Switzerland was mentioned. The letter also gave as an excuse for not admitting more refugees, that there were "so many unemployed citizens in our own nation". The same motive had led other Governments - as for instance the Dutch Government - to issue decrees restricting immigration.

The members of the Ministers Union of Geneva wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the City of Geneva in which they expressed their deep sympathy with the persecuted Jews. This letter, together with the declaration of the Church Council of Zurich (see above) was read at a service, held in the synagogue on a Sunday and not, as usual, on a Saturday. This postponement was in order that the prayers of that day could be united with those of all the Christian Churches in Switzerland for the persecuted Jews. [153]

In December, 1938, the Synod of the Canton of Bern issued the following Declaration:

"The Synod of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Canton Bern declares, that it views the merciless persecution of Jews and Fellow-Christians stemming from Jewry, as an expression of a spirit which has nothing in common with the spirit of Jesus Christ. It calls upon all members of our Church to intercede on behalf of the persecuted, especially our persecuted brothers; to stand up for them on every occasion; and to oppose any further attempt to poison the soul of our people with the spirit of racial hatred." [154]

* * * <57>

12 DENMARK

Leading Danish theologians - three professors and one lecturer of the Copenhagen University [155] and the Bishop of Copenhagen, Fuglsang-Damgaard - published a declaration on January 10, 1936, denouncing an anti-Semitic brochure, "The Christian Church according to the concept of the peoples of the North", based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Professor Frederik Torm related the history of this forgery in an informative article. The matter drew attention, even in Germany, where the "Volkische Beobachter" in its edition of January 14, 1936 reported the story as told by its correspondent in Copenhagen under the caption "Danish theologians grow nervous" and with the subtitle: "The Jewish question arises in Denmark". The report of the former German Envoy, Richthofen, dated January 13, 1936, shows the same attitude, considering the article of the theologians as an act of defence against "the ever increasing understanding of the Jewish question in Germany among the Danish public". [156]

In the autumn of 1938, Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard said in his sermon at the opening of a new church, Lundehuskirken, that it was with deep pain that the Christian community had heard about the persecution of the Jews in Germany, which had reached a culminating-point in those days. 149 pastors of Copenhagen supported these words by a public statement and pronounced their "deep sympathy with our Jewish countrymen on account of the sufferings which at this time befall their brethren and which must fill every Christian with horror". <58> Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard asked the pastors to pray for the suffering Jews in the services the following Sunday, and he himself declared at a service in Helligkors Church, that we must pray to God "to protect our people against the poisonous pestilence of anti-Semitism, hatred of the Jews and persecution of the Jews. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was David's Son after the flesh, and those who love Him cannot hate His people". [157]

13 SWEDEN

The Swedish Ecumenical Council sent the following letter, dated April 3, 1933, to the German Evangelical Church Council in Berlin:

"The Swedish Ecumenical Council, a representation of different Swedish Church communities, sincerely regrets the existing conditions in Germany and the boycott of German goods abroad, and is deeply concerned by the anti-Semitic action in your country, such as has been expressed in official statements and actions. We hope and pray that, with God's help, it will be possible for the German Evangelical Churches actively to stress the genuinely Christian principles, which you upheld in your appeal before the latest elections. "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." As Christian brothers, we are anxious to be in communication with you in this matter and further hear your views. In sincere communion in the faith, for the Swedish Ecumenical Council: Arch-bishop Erling Eidem, Chairman. [158]

The Appeal of the German Evangelical Church Council to which this letter referred, was published on March 3, 1933, just before the elections for the Reichstag. Unfortunately, we do not know whether any reply was received by the Swedish Ecumenical Council.

In 1933, 64 prominent Protestant Church leaders also published an "Appeal to Swedish Christianity", warning against anti-Semitic influences in Sweden:

"Action against the Jews in Germany seems to work as a stimulant - and no small one - for the anti-Semitism which exists in certain Swedish circles. Many of us may have been prone to consider this movement in our country as insignificant, and not worth combating. But the matter is more serious than that. If sufficiently great spiritual strength is not mobilized against this fanatical and shortsighted nationalism, it is difficult to foresee the result. <59> The undersigned regard it as their duty to express the worry and anger with which this anti-Semitic movement has filled them, and to appeal to Swedish Christianity of all denominations to fight against racial hatred, stressing Christ's valuation of man and his brother-love. <59> Already from a general and cultural viewpoint, anti-Semitism is an expression of ingratitude and shortsightedness. No less in our country, citizens of Jewish descent, have contributed in all fields to such a degree that, if all trace of what they have done were erased from the Swedish civilization, to-day, it would be much poorer. But first, anti-Semitism must be condemned from a Christian-religious viewpoint. Here too one can, rightly, speak of a debt of gratitude. The prophets and psalms of Israel also belong to our holy heritage. And in spite of all wild racial hypotheses, Jesus Christ is a son of Israel and a perfecter of these prophets' work. However, it is not only, and not first and foremost, the gratitude for a spiritual inheritance which urges Christian people to take their stand against anti-Jewish activity. They would be denying their Master if they did not do so. For in Him all racial differences are overcome, in the divine love, which has taken form in Him, we are all each other's brothers, no matter to which nation or race we belong. Whosoever professes himself a follower of Christ, yet lets himself be seized by nationalistic presumption, of which anti-Semitism is one of the most repellant expressions, must realize that any action designed to attach a stamp of inferiority on members of the Jewish people or deprive them of full civil rights, is in absolute opposition to the spirit and teaching of Jesus. The gravity of the situation has impelled us to make public this declaration, which is also an appeal to Swedish Christianity to oppose unmitigatedly a propaganda which is becoming louder and more aggressive anti-Jewish, and the mentality of violence from which it stems. Time must not be lost. Freedom of speech is not yet stifled. The gospel of Truth and Love may still sound its voice." [159]

At a meeting of the Stockholm Pastors' Society, held in 1934, Professor Nygren of Lund opened the discussion on the subject: "What is the reason for the struggle within the German Church?" The Pastors' Society unanimously decided to publish in the press their agreement with the fundamental viewpoints expressed in Prof. Nygren's address. The Society's Resolution reads as follows:

"The furious struggle now taking place within the German Church is not on a personal question, a question of rights or a question of organization. Nor is it a struggle for or against the National-Socialistic State or for or against the liberalistic freedom ideal. <60> The struggle concerns Christianity itself, its existence or non-existence. What is happening in Germany to-day is nothing more or less than the appearance of a new religion, beside and in contrast to Christianity - a religion based on 'Blut und Boden', on racial idealism and racial egoism. This has to some extent thrown Christians and non-Christians into jail. From a deeper viewpoint, the difference between 'German Christians' and the heathen 'German Faith Movement', therefore, becomes surprisingly small. If we observe the deepest tendency, of which, in general, the followers of these movements are quite unconscious, it can even be said that, for the former group, it is a question of the new religion in Christian guise; for the latter, the same religion in Germanic guise. The extraordinary danger is that the present Church management has not the least understanding of the reason for the struggle. It believes that it is fighting for the sake of Christianity and does not realize that it has slipped into a new racial religion. True, it often stresses that the Bible and the Confession should be left 'unas- sailed', but the tone of the voice itself reveals that it is on something else that one subsists. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The real pathos first appears when one can talk of 'Blut und Boden', 'Blut und Rasse', 'Blut und Ehre'. The god one really worships is the idol of one's own people. But in the German Church there are men - and fortunately these are not few - who understand what is at stake; what this new religion has to offer the people, from a Christian viewpoint, is nothing less than idolatry. One creates a new god in one's own image, the image of 'the German Man'. The Christians who see this must, through their faithfulness to the Gospel, be forced out into the struggle. Because of this they find themselves in tragic conflict; for there is so much in the new state to which, in their hearts, they say 'yes', and with joy. But when they fight this new heathen spirit that has penetrated the Church and seized the power in it, they are stamped as enemies of the state by the uncomprehending Church management. The point has been reached, where those who do not want to give up their Christian faith are attacked by the German Church management: with external means of power, the secret state police, removals from office and suspensions. We, Evangelical Christians of a kindred people, have seen with grief and concern that the German Church management through such activities has tarnished the Christian name. With the deepest sympathy we follow the oppressed Christians' brave and joyfully self-sacrificing struggle, in defence of Evangelical Christianity, not only in Germany but also the world over." [160] <61> The Resolution contains points that to-day are obvious to us, but in those days they undoubtedly enlightened many ignorant people. Much that has been said by the Lutheran Church leaders of Sweden, already in the first years of Hitler's regime, shows a deep theological insight into the nature of anti-Semitism. Few Churches in other lands showed this insight at so early a date. This fact should prevent us from over-simplifying the answers to the question, as to how far certain of Luther's views about the Jewish people influenced the Lutheran Churches in the twentieth century.

* * *

The following statement, signed by Erling Eidem, Archbishop of Uppsala, and 25 other Church leaders was issued by the Swedish Ecumenical Council, in autumn 1938:

"A storm of violence and cruelty goes through the world. The Jewish people are severely hit by this. Their horrible fate must awake in Christian minds strong indignation, as well as deep sympathy for the victims. To belong to the Jewish race is becoming equivalent to being stateless within that portion of humanity which calls itself Christian. This brings shame upon the Christian name.

Anti-Semitic Propaganda in Sweden

"In our country, too, anti-Semitic propaganda is prosecuted, even though it may, in some respects, avoid publicity and, especially under the pressure of recent occurrences, has met with deserved resistance. More than others, Christians here must be on their guard. No racial differences exist in the Christian evaluation of man. Love of Christ forbids branding any person inferior. Persecution of the people of Israel on the one hand requests Christ's congregation to fight against violence and injustice, and preventive action on the other. The Swedish Ecumenical Council, representing the ecumenical world organizations as well as the larger Swedish Church communities, hereby begs to remind you of our Christian responsibility in this matter. We must not forget that we too, bear a measure of guilt for this evil power that has arisen through loveless ness and injustice in the world. We appeal to all who, in their capacity as pastor, congregation head or preacher, are responsible for the creation of public opinion in such circles as come under Christian influence, to resist the spirit of mercilessness and injustice in the anti-semitic propaganda, by all ways and means available in each community. It seems especially important to us to try to prevent its poison penetrating the minds of the Young. Not only religious instruction in the schools can give an opportunity for this, but also instruction in Sunday schools, confirmation classes and Bible classes. A few congregational evenings could be used to throw light upon the plight of the Jewish people and to stress our Christian responsibility towards them. The un-Christian element in all racial hatred could at times be stressed in the sermon. All discussion of politics naturally must be banned from such Christian instruction and preaching. <62>

Aid of Refugees

"Where the feeling of responsibility has been awakened, it must be transformed into action. This can be done by gifts to the relief organizations among the banished, which also have branches in our country. In co-operation with other organizations, the Swedish Ecumenical Council's Refugee Committee seeks to aid refugees both within and outside our country's borders, particularly Christians of non-Aryan descent. The money already collected is now almost spent, but the need for help is still very great. Gifts for this activity can be deposited under the name "Help for Refugees" on the Swedish Ecumenical Council's postal current account No. 80710, Stockholm. Recently, the Council's Refugee Committee, the Deacon Board's Social Committee and the Swedish Israel Mission have started other aid activities, such as accommodating children of Jewish refugees, preferably Jewish-Christian, in Swedish homes for a shorter or longer period, and trying to find places farmers' homes for about a year for Jewish-Christian youth, particularly male, who need re-education for later emigration to countries which have declared themselves willing to receive them. Information of such homes as well as financial contributions will be gratefully received by Pastor B. Pernow, Idungatan 4, Stockholm, postal current account No. 125545.

Intercession

"At this period, with the mentality of violence penetrating minds more and more, it is important not to neglect the possibilities we still have to make Christ's mind and Christ's thoughts heard regarding the relation between man and man, between people and people. Scarcely at any other point has this task seemed clearer and more demanding than as it concerns the Western peoples' conduct towards Israel. May Christ's love in our hearts light a flame of concern for a people who were the Lord's own, the people of the Prophets and the Apostles. May Christ's love make us burning and persistent in our intercession for those who suffer persecution, as well as, for those who persecute. May they receive the grace to repent. May Christ's love make us firm against all hatred, drive out all fear, and make our hands ready for service. Brethren, in the name of Christ we beg you to receive this appeal in a brotherly spirit." [161]

It is difficult to understand how "all discussions of politics" can be banned from Christian instruction and teaching, as the statement demands, whilst at the same time resisting "the spirit of mercilessness...". <63> In this same statement, support was requested for the Refugee Committee, which sought "to aid refugees... particularly Christians of non-Aryan descent". We have seen the same trend in Churches in other countries. However, the appeal of the Bishops of Sweden, also in 1938, pleaded for aid to Jewish children and youth in general. This "Appeal for Help to Jewish Refugees" was signed by Archbishop Eidem and 12 other Church leaders:

"With deep sorrow and sincere sympathy, we have witnessed the terrible sufferings to which the Jewish people, not least during recent months, have been exposed spiritually as well as physically. The question of the Jewish people has become a question for all mankind. No one can escape responsibility any longer. Our consciences shaken by the suffering of innocent people will not rest until peace and refuge has been provided for the Jewish people. Each one of us must be on his guard against contamination by the plague of racial hatred; we must not betray the Christian commandment of love to every suffering neighbour. May we willingly do our Samaritan service in aiding mercy. The duty and possibility nearest to us is to support Jewish refugees who have had to relinquish home and property. We must hurry to help provide a refuge and a new future for innocent children and youth. Various collections in this respect have already begun. We hereby wish to stress that collections for Jewish children and youth are being mediated by the Swedish Church's Deacon Board. Contributions should be sent to "Deacon Board, Help for Jewish children, Stockholm 7, Postal Cheque Account No. 155650'." [162]

14 HUNGARY

The first anti-Jewish Law, restricting the economic activities of Jews, was enacted in 1938. The representatives of the Churches in the Hungarian Upper House, amongst whom was the Protestant Bishop Ravasz, voted for the passage of this law. [163] <64>

"The only amendment the representatives of the Churches wished to be introduced was that certain modifications should be included for the benefit of the baptized Jews. Apart from that, they took the view that once the Bill had become law 'it would be possible to avoid emphasis being laid on the Jewish question and thus to allay anti-Semitism'. This attitude turned out to be a fatal mistake. It was the stone that started the landslide, and it is all the more regrettable that the Christian Churches lent this Bill their support." [164]

Rabbi Fabian Hershkovits (former Chief Rabbi of Budapest, now living in Tel- Aviv, Israel) had the following to say:

"Bishop Ravasz was certainly not an anti-Semite. After the war, in 1947, he was the President of the Council of Christians and Jews of which I also was a member. He and his friends intended, by supporting the anti-Jewish law in 1938, to guard the national Hungarian interest. He did not understand that Europe, after Hitler had come to power, had become a powder-magazine; one should not light a match in a powder-magazine; that was Bishop Ravasz's historical mistake." [165]

The fact remains that Protestant Bishops supported an anti-Semitic Law. If this was an error of judgment, it certainly was a fatal error.

In 1939, the Hungarian government introduced a bill for the enactment of the second anti-Jewish Law. The measures included drastic curtailments of personal rights. The representatives of the Churches "stood solidly against the passage of the bill" but ultimately "refrained from voting down the Teleki government," that is to say they did not vote against the passage of the Law but tried "to incorporate such provisions in the law as would insure the greatest possible benefits for particular Jewish categories, the first among these being the Jewish converts to Christianity". [166] Hilberg comments:

"In waging the struggle for the baptized Jews in the first place, the church had implicitly declined to take up the struggle for Jewry as a whole. In insisting that the definition exclude Christians, the church in effect stated the condition upon which it would accept a definition that set aside a group of people for destruction." [167] <65>

15 RUMANIA

We hardly found any statement against anti-Semitism issued by one of the Orthodox Church leaders in Eastern Europe, before the second world war. Rumania was notorious for the strong anti-Semitic influences in that country. The following Declaration, issued on April 15, 1933, by Mgr. Pimem, Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, is the more striking:

"We now are in the Holy Week and for a time we must forget petty affairs and acts of men. Nevertheless I wish to state one thing, namely, that I do not approve of the actions and policies of the Nazis with respect to the Jews of Germany, just as I disapprove of the anti-Christian campaign carried out in Russia. I desire peace for the entire world and on the occasion of this Holy Feast I express my wishes for the health and progress of our people. We should follow but one course: the way of Christ, for only thus can we be led to salvation." [168]

16 GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

Many leaders of the Churches in Great Britain publicly protested against the first anti-Jewish measures in Germany. Most of the protests were made by the leaders of the Church of England, though some made by other Churches are also recorded. The Church of England, however, certainly had the widest range of influence in England. I have not recorded all protests that were made. [169] <66>

Already in 1933 the protests were clear and unequivocal, though the Church leaders seemed to be afraid of offending the German Government. The Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of Lords, on March 30, 1933, in reply to statements made by Lord Reading:

"I feel that it would be a decided omission on my part, were I not to state publicly, in the name of the worthiest citizens of our country, whom I represent here, that I entirely agree with the words just spoken by the Right Hon. Lord Reading, words which touched us all. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will, as I know it hopes to do, be able to assure us that it is doing its utmost to express to the Jewish community the sympathy of this country and of all Christian subjects, - not least of those amongst us who have a feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation." [170]

The Archbishop himself apparently belonged to "those amongst us who have a feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation". The Bishop of Ripon addressed the following Message to the International League combating Anti-Semitism and Racialism, on May 1, 1933:

"Most gladly do I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with you and the International League in your struggle against anti-Semitism, on the occasion of the distressing situation created in Germany by the new form of government. It seems almost incredible that such things should happen in the 20th century, and above all in a country like Germany. The leaders of this country, - of the Church as well as of the State, - have not left the German government in doubt as to the feelings aroused in us by its policy of cruelty and suicide." [171]

On May 5, 1933, the Archbishop of York issued the following Message:

"Racial persecution is an insult to civilization and culture. It is our duty to endeavour to understand the cause and the character of the Nazi revolution in Germany, which has gained the support of a large number of the best citizens of the country. But although it generally happens that understanding produces sympathy, the persecution of Jews, Pacifists and others, such as has so far disgraced the conquests of the Revolution, cannot but alienate all sympathies. It is highly important that the government and leaders of the German nation should realize how great the animosity is which these acts provoke among the best British citizens. <67> Whatever excuses may be made for deeds of violence committed in the course of a revolution, no condemnation can be too severe for the persecution and the organized terror, which undeniably are typical aspects of the recent revolution." [172]

No doubt the Nazi revolution in Germany had gained the support of a large number of citizens of that country. That the Archbishop believed that they belonged to the best citizens of Germany, is typical of the atmosphere that reigned in those days. Fortunately, however, "the best British citizens were provoked by the persecution".

On May 15, 1933, a Meeting of Protest was held in Birmingham. The Bishop of Birmingham presented the following Resolution:

"This meeting of Christian citizens of Birmingham who are anxious to promote friendly international relations, expresses its profound conviction that the discriminating measures adopted against the Jewish race, both in Germany and elsewhere, are contrary to the spirit and the principles of Christianity. It urges Christian men and women everywhere to exert their influence in order to do away with racial and national prejudice." [173]

The resolution was adopted at the close of the Meeting.

On May 31, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Anglican Clergy at Westminster. The English Primate appealed to the German nation:

"to give up, without delay, the racial discrimination which is now being practised. The true strength of a nation and the respect owing to it by other nations lies in the impartial administration of justice to all those who live in its territory". [174]

On June 27, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Protest, held at Queen's Hall, London:

"We all know that at this very time while we are gathered here in an atmosphere of peace and security, the members of the Jewish community in Germany are being expelled from all public employment, from the posts which they had obtained in virtue of their qualifications, in law, in medicine, and at the universities, and that they are even excluded from concert halls, where music was always considered to be the language common to all mankind. They are being progressively deprived - even when permission is given to practise their profession or their trade - of every chance of earning a living... <68> I think with particular indignation of what I have heard concerning the treatment inflicted on Jewish children, who are set apart in schools, separated from other children as though they were unclean. Think of the effect this must produce on such children in whom the feeling is inculcated from their tenderest years that they are not worthy to mix with other Germans! And then picture to yourselves the effect this is bound to have on non-Jewish German children, who are thus taught from their earliest days to despise and look down upon other children. When injustice prevails to such an extent, it is impossible here or in any part of the civilized world, that men for whom justice is a part of the heritage they desire to keep intact should remain silent. They must needs speak, were it only to ease their own conscience." [175]

The Archbishop showed a remarkable insight when he expressed his particular indignation about the separation of Jewish children in schools from other children. That was at a time when many Christians and Jews tended to underestimate the malevolent intentions of the rulers of the Third Reich.

Representatives of all religious creeds, responding to an appeal of the United Council of Christian Churches in Ireland (now renamed the Irish Council of Churches) voted for the following Resolution, on the occasion of a public Meeting of Protest, held at Belfast, in May 1933:

"We have met here in order to express our deepest regret that millions of law-abiding citizens who are not guilty of any crime or of any criminal intentions, should have been accused, persecuted and placed beyond the pale of the law, for the sole reason that they belong to the race which was, after all, the source of our European religion, and to which the founder of Christianity belonged. The meeting is horrified at the thought of the sufferings endured and the consequences, which are bound to ensue for Europe and the whole world. The history of the human race, of these islands, and of Ireland herself presents countless examples of the disastrous effects that persecution has had for us, not to mention the repercussion elsewhere. We know the obstacles that intolerance placed in the way of our national development, the harm it has done, the wounds it has inflicted, the hatred it has caused to accumulate in the course of centuries; hatred by which the minds of men are poisoned long after the actual grievances have disappeared. For this reason we deplore this new seed of death, the dire results of which we foresee, not only for Germany, but also for the whole of Europe."[176] <69>

The Church of Scotland is by far the largest Church in Scotland. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is the final authority of that Church. It is convened annually in May and attended by about 700 ministers and 700 elders, delegated by the presbyteries of the Church. The following statement was issued by the General Assembly, in May, 1933:

"The General Assembly rejoice that, in this country, the longstanding traditions of friendliness and goodwill to the Jewish people continue to be maintained; they deplore the growth of anti-Semitism in many lands to-day, and, in particular, its recent intensified manifestations in Germany; and they respectfully appeal to the sister German Churches to secure, through their influence with their fellow countrymen and governing authorities, that, notwithstanding the inevitable unsettlement of revolutionary conditions, the suffering of the innocent shall cease, and justice and charity towards all shall prevail." [177]

The Church of Scotland apparently was optimistic about the "influence of the sister German Churches with their fellow-countrymen and governing authorities". We, who now live after the events, are not astonished that the General Assembly lamented, in 1937, that, "the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of results". [178] The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was the only ecclesiastical authority, which as far as I know, spoke out against anti-Semitism year after year. The contents of the statements show that it was not an automatic affair, for the changing character of the situation was reflected in these protests. In May, 1934, the following Statement was adopted:

"The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in light of the present world situation as concerns the Jewish race, place on record the following expression of their view and convictions. <70> Remembering the age-long sufferings of the Jewish people, their homelessness a nation which has lasted for centuries, the persecutions, injustices and hardships they have endured, from Governments, Churches and individuals; in view also of the present fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitic fanaticism manifested in many lands, the General Assembly offer to the Jewish people their heartfelt sympathy with them in their almost intolerable wrongs. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland desire to assure the entire Jewish world that ill-treatment of the Jews on account of their race or religion is to them abhorrent; that in their judgment it is a denial of the first principles laid down by the great Founder of the Christian Faith, who places love and kindness to all as fundamental laws of His Kingdom; and that it is their firm belief that any Church which claims to be animated by the spirit of Jesus Christ and which nevertheless acts with intolerance towards members of the Jewish race, is thereby denying the elementary doctrines of the Christian Faith. The General Assembly acknowledge with gratitude to God the great contributions to human knowledge which the Jewish race has made in many realms; in a special degree they express their debt to the Jewish people for the scrupulous care with which they preserved the early documents of Holy Scripture for the ultimate benefit of all nations, which for centuries have nourished the piety of myriads who thereby have learned of the grace of Almighty God. The General Assembly would, in conclusion, again express their sense of the profound significance of the fact that the One whom they rejoice to believe in as the divine Saviour of the world came, according to the flesh, of the Jewish race, and they feel that this thought imparts to the Hebrew nation a special and peculiar position in world history, rendering it a duty on the part of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ to love also the race from which He sprang." [179]

It was then moved and resolved that the Assembly send to the Chief Rabbi a message of sympathy. The statement issued in May, 1935, is as follows:

"The General Assembly renew their protest against the anti-Semitic spirit which still prevails in many countries, express their sympathy with the Jews in their sufferings, and urge their faithful people to a greater earnestness in commending the Gospel as the one sure basis of fellowship and peace among all men." [180]

Not all statements and protests issued over this period in Great Britain and Ireland can be recorded here, but we mention in conclusion two statements issued by Churches, not yet mentioned. <71>

In April 1933, the following Message was sent by Dr. Scott Midgett, President of the United Methodist Church, to a meeting at the White-chapel Art Gallery:

"All the different branches of the Christian Churches share the Jewish Communities' horror of all deeds of violence against citizens, and especially of such outbursts of violence against any race or class of society. I feel convinced that I am interpreting the feeling of the Methodist Church in stressing our hope that measures will instantly be taken in Germany in order to prevent a recurrence of explosions of this nature in the future." [181]

In 1934, the "Report to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in England" stated:

"There has unhappily appeared in various parts of the world, notably in Germany, a recondescense of that irrational and wholly unchristian spirit of anti-semitism, which from time to time has disgraced European civilisation. A number of its victims have arrived in our country, and the Archbishops of Great Britain have issued a moving appeal for their relief. But we must do something more. To quote the News Sheet issued by the International Committee for the Christian Approach to the Jews: "We must play the part of the Good Samaritan". But that is only one of our objectives. Wise Christian statesmanship demands that in addition to our relief activities, we must also endeavour to eliminate the causes, which create anti-semitism and its victims. Those who are in a position to know, maintain that the outbreak in Germany is sure to spread to other lands. Indeed it has already begun to do so. We know of attempts to foster the spirit in our own country. And there are so-called Christians who attempt to justify it. But note the fact that anti-semitism is essentially anti-Christian. No conscious anti-Semite can do homage to Christ, the Jew."

The Assembly adopted the following Resolution:

"The Assembly regrets the spirit of anti-semitism now prevalent in Germany and other parts of Europe, and urges its faithful people so to act towards all Jews as to allay the spread of this spirit." [182] <72>

* * *

On November 20, 1935, the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. George Bell) moved a resolution in the Church Assembly. [183] The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Lang) had to leave to officiate at the christening of His Majesty's grandson. He asked the Archbishop of York to take his place in the chair. Without a word of explanation, however, his absence might be misunderstood.

"Speaking simply for himself, he felt bound to say that he did most strongly protest against the persecution of the Jews... He was sure that the continuation of the present modes of persecution must seriously affect the good will with which the people of this country desired to regard the German nation."

The Bishop of Chichester then moved: "That this Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their number in Germany, and trusts that Christian people in this and other countries will exert their influence to make it plain to the rulers of Germany that the continuance of their present policy will arouse widespread indignation and prove a grave obstacle to the promotion of confidence and good will between Germany and other nations".

He said he moved the resolution with great reluctance, as one who had a profound admiration for Germany, as one who had many friends in that country, and desired the closest co-operation and the firmest mutual understanding between Germany and Great Britain. He was compelled to move his resolution because, as a human being, he saw a wrong done to humanity in one great area of German life and action. As a friend of Germany he saw the hoped-for friendship between two kindred countries tumbling into ruin through the prosecution of a policy against a section of its population, which was unworthy of a great civilized nation. He appealed to the rulers of Germany to desist from a course which shocked Christian opinion in this country in a way to which the nearest analogy was the oppression of the Jews in Russia by the Tsarist Government exactly 30 years ago. The hardships suffered by baptized persons of Jewish origin made a peculiar claim upon their Christian sympathy and compassion. There were two points of attack: <73> the casting out of the Jews from all cultural and professional life, together with the precariousness of their position in business, and the defamation of the Jews throughout Germany. The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews, yet suffering of individuals increased and the personal attacks grew bolder. No doubt they saw in The Times not so many weeks back that prayer was asked in all German synagogues for protection for the Jews against slander, with the result that the Chief Rabbi suffered imprisonment for one day and other Rabbis suffered punishment. He was sure that great masses of German people themselves abhorred the policy of persecution. They, too, must feel as we felt, that it was a great scar across the fair fame of Germany.

The Bishop of Southwark (Dr. Parsons), in seconding the resolution, said they had hoped that the days of the Ghetto had passed for ever. Now the Jewish people in Germany apparently were being forced back into conditions which reminded them all too vividly of the Ghetto. Their whole position, if it could not be compared with that of slaves, could be compared with that of helots. An article in The Times had described the whole policy as a "cold pogrom".

Mr. S. Carlile Davis, the German Vice-Consul at Plymouth, in opposing the resolution, said that every member of the Assembly would agree that they should all express sympathy with those who suffered from persecution, envy, hatred, malice, or any uncharitableness... The Jewish question, so far as it affected Germany, was purely a race question, and it was nothing new in Germany. It was not for us to dictate to any people how they should handle a race question... The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Henson) submitted that they had in the resolution brought before them by the Bishop of Chichester one of those matters which required from them as a great representative Assembly of Christian men a clear pronouncement of their convictions. One thing which they ought to emphasize was the solidarity of civilization... The Jews were just as mixed a race as the Germans - they could hardly be more. This nonsense about race - as if there were some poison in the ancestry of Judaism which must be guarded against - was sheer hallucination and nonsense. We knew in this country that the Jews could be as prominent in good citizenship as any other section of His Majesty's subjects. We, who were the children of Christendom, could not exclude from our minds the vastness of the obligations under which we stood to the Jewish people. Our Divine Lord, according to the flesh, was a Jew. His Apostles were all Jews. The Sacred Book, which we used was a Jewish Book. It was preposterous, base and almost incredibly mean that we, the children of Christendom, should turn on the ancient children of God, to whom religiously, spiritually and morally we owed almost everything we value. <74> "The least we can do," Dr. Henson concluded, "is to make it clear from our hearts that we loathe and detest this attitude which is obtaining in Germany, and protest against the continuance of this brutal oppression of a small minority of Jewish citizens in Germany." (Loud and continued cheers.)... Mr. G.F. Lefroy (Exeter), in opposing the resolution, said that Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. He moved, as an amendment, that only the first portion of the resolution should be moved, confining it to the words "That the Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their numbers in Germany".

On being put to the vote, Mr. Carlile Davis's motion for the previous question and Mr. Lefroy's amendment were rejected by very large majorities. The Bishop of Chichester's motion was then carried, with few dissentients. [184]

Some of the Bishop of Chichester's words mentioned above could create misunderstanding, for instance, that he "had a profound admiration for Germany". Dr. Bell's record regarding the fight against anti-Semitism (as well as in many other respects) is outstanding. [185] One should note the policy of deception practised by the Germans: "The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews...". [186] That seems incredible, and yet it provided a pretext for people who wanted to do nothing. In the discussion on the above mentioned resolution, one Mr. Lefroy, in opposing the resolution, said: "Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. Therefore, why should the Assembly pass it?" Apparently it escaped the attention of Mr. Lefroy that a Church Assembly is not a Parliament, and that a Church body often can and ought to say things publicly, even though a Parliament is not prepared to do so, or perhaps for that very reason. However, the Bishop of Durham's speech, in the same meeting of the Church Assembly, is an outstanding example of how a Christian leader could and should speak. <75> The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J.H. Hertz, wrote to the Bishop of Chichester:

"Your words will come as a ray of hope to hundreds of thousands whose annihilation seems to have been decided upon by the Nazi rulers." [187]

At a meeting of the London Diocesan Conference [188] held in Central Hall, Westminster, in 1936, the following resolution was submitted for discussion by permission of the Bishop of London:

"This Conference, while fully aware of the difficulties that must arise from the presence in certain districts of large populations of people of other religious beliefs and social habits, asserts that the Jew and the Christian are equal children of God, and therefore calls upon all Christians to stand firm against any and every attempt to arouse anti-Semitic feeling for political or any other needs." [189]

The Bishop of Chichester was very active in promoting help for Christians of Jewish origin. [190] This subject is, however, beyond the scope of this book. In the summer session of the Church Assembly, in June 1938, Dr. Bell pleaded that the needs of Jews and Christians alike should be remembered. "The Bishop of Chichester moved: That this Assembly records its deep distress at the sufferings endured by 'non-Aryan' Christians, as well as by members of the Jewish race, in Germany and Austria, and urges that not only should everything possible be done by Government aid to assist their emigration into other countries but also that Christians everywhere should express their fellowship with their suffering brethren by material gifts as well as by personal sympathy and by prayer."

He said he did not want to speak of political matters in a country with which they desired to be friends, nor to attack the leadership of the great German State. He asked the Assembly not to make any protest against a system, but to record its deep distress at the suffering of Christians and Jews... <76> What could members do? First of all they must not forget it, but let it be printed on their memory and never rest while the distress was unhealed. They must remember the needs of Jews and Christians alike. It was wrong to separate the Jews and leave the Jews to the Jews and the Christians to the Christians. They both made a deep appeal by their sufferings to all humanity and above all to the Christian Church.'... First of all they could pray for the sufferers; prayer from the heart availed and was a great bond of fellowship. Next they could feel deeply for and with them until something was done. Thirdly there was material help... He asked for their (the Assembly's) help and for the help of their constituents all over England and he asked for the awakening of conscience. They would not forget and he could not forget that their Master was a Jew, a non-Aryan. They thought in their hearts that if they saw their Master in sorrow they would wish to help him, but it was right to remember the parable that their Master uttered of judgment and what He said when He rebuked certain disciples: 'For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and ye took me not in: naked and ye clothed me not: sick and in prison and ye visited me not.' When the disciples in defending themselves asked what he meant, the Master added: 'Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me'. He was convinced that their attitude in England and in the Church of England to the needs of those suffering non-Aryan Christians and members of the Jewish race was the test of their attitude to their Master himself. It was because of that that he felt so deeply and that he asked them to give their prayers and sympathy and their material help.

The motion was carried. [191]

The Bishop of Chichester followed this move with a plea for more vigorous Government action in his maiden speech in the House of Lords, on July 27, 1938. He began with a strong condemnation of the Nazi persecution:

"I cannot understand - and I know many Germans - how our own kinsmen of the German race can lower themselves to such a level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack defenceless people in the way that the National-Socialists have attacked the non-Aryans. <77>

He then pleaded with the Government to follow up the initiative of President Roosevelt by increasing its facilities for training younger refugees in Great Britain, by providing greater scope for settlement in the Colonies, and by persuading the Dominions to open their doors more widely. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured him that the Government would do what it could. But Dr. Bell remarked a few weeks later in his Diocesan Gazette:

"It is almost as hard to understand the seeming apathy with which the fate of the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians is being regarded by the people of the British Empire... These non-Aryans can no longer be called 'refugees' for they have as yet no country of refuge. We emphasize the responsibility of the British Empire in this connection, because the British Colonies and the British Dominions cover the larger part of the whole available globe. It seems to us impossible, both on the grounds of charity and on the grounds of statesmanship, that the doors can remain forever shut." [192]

Resolutions adopted by the Presbyterian Church of England exposed the danger of anti-Semitism existing in England in those days. In 1937, the General Assembly stated:

"The Assembly notes with concern the attempts which have been made to create racial antipathy against the Jews, with whom the Assembly expresses its sympathy. The Assembly expresses its conviction, that in a nation professing Christianity, no discrimination on grounds of race must be recognised. The Assembly urges that the freedom accorded by law in this country to citizens of any faith to live in peace and pursue their lawful callings shall be specially safeguarded. The Assembly resolves to send a copy of this resolution to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and to the Home Secretary." [193]

In May, 1938, the General Assembly adopted the following Resolution:

"The Assembly urges its faithful people to encourage every effort to overcome the evil spirit of anti-Semitism which thing we hate." <78>

There was hesitancy in the minds of some about the word 'hate', when the Convener moved this resolution, but the Assembly overwhelmingly approved of it. [194]

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland certainly did not mince words. It declared in 1936:

"The General Assembly learn with profound regret that the past year has brought no alleviation of the sufferings caused to the Jewish people by the inhuman political, social and economic persecutions prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe. They protest against the religious intolerance, the narrow nationalism and race-pride on which anti-semitic hatreds are based. They call on the Christian people of Scotland, in loyalty to the law of Christ and their own high traditions of liberty and toleration, to rid their minds of all narrow anti-Jewish prejudice, and to broaden out their obedience to the Gospel ever commanding peace and goodwill to all men. The General Assembly again commend to the liberality of their faithful people appeals made on behalf of refugee Jews from Germany and other lands, specially remembering the Christians of Jewish race who are involved in the terrors of persecution." [195]

In 1937, the General Assembly declared:

"The General Assembly renew in Christ's name their condemnation of the unabated brutality still being dealt to the Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and lament that the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of result. They deprecate the attempts in certain parts of England to create antipathy against the Jews." [196]

The statement adopted in May 1938, reads as follows:

"The General Assembly renew their protest against the virulence and cruelty of the attacks still being directed against helpless Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and they affirm that no Church can be truly Christian and anti-semitic at one and the same time." [197]

* * *

The first reaction to the horrors of the "Crystal Night" pogroms was a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "The Times":

"I believe that I speak for the Christian people of this country in giving immediate expression to the feelings of indignation with which we have read of the deeds of cruelty and destruction which were perpetrated last Thursday in Germany and Austria. <79> Whatever provocation may have been given by the deplorable act of a single irresponsible Jewish youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce, cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified. A sinister significance is added to them by the fact that the police seem either to have acquiesced in them or to have been powerless to restrain them. it is most distasteful to write these words just when there is in this country a general desire to be on friendly terms with the German nation. But there are times when the mere instincts of humanity make silence impossible. Would that the rulers of the Reich could realize that such excesses of hatred and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready to offer them an almost intolerable strain. I trust that in our churches on Sunday and thereafter remembrance may be made in our prayers of those who have suffered this fresh onset of persecution and whose future seems to be so dark and hopeless." [198]

The Archbishop's letter expressed "feelings of indignation", but also reflected the spirit of appeasement: the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, only six weeks before.

On November 16, 1938, during the Autumn Session of the Church Assembly, the Bishop of Chichester pleaded that help should be given to Christian refugees of Jewish origin. In January 1939, he was to urge "to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans". Now the tendency still was to stress the help to Christians of Jewish origin, not to the Jews in general. There was one notable exception, in which Jews and Christians jointly took action, without asking themselves whether the persons to be helped were Jews or Christians. Lord Gorell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be joint Chairman (with Lord Samuel) of the "Movement for the Care of Children from Germany", in February 1938. This movement succeeded in bringing over 9,354 children from Germany to England. Roughly nine-tenths were Jewish, and one-tenth Christian children. <80> "Where a Jewish child was received in a Christian home - which occurred frequently - it was prescribed by the Movement, and accepted by the foster-parents, that there should be no attempt to proselytise. The nearest Rabbi, or Jewish teacher, was put in touch with the child, and if personal contact was not possible, instruction was arranged by correspondence. The last transports of the children from Germany reached England a few days after the outbreak of the war." [201]

A Joint Statement was issued by British Church leaders, in April 1939:

"In making the following statement, we, the undersigned, - the Archbishop of York; Dr. Jas. Black, Moderator of the Church of Scotland; the Bishop of Edinburgh; Dr. S.M. Berry, Congregational Union of England and Wales and Federal Council of Free Churches; the Rev. M.E. Aubrey, Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, - feel that we are giving expression to the convictions of a large number of Christians in Great Britain: 1. We believe that the following is an essential and basic principle of all true civilization: Religious freedom, freedom of opinion and action in accordance with religious beliefs, provided that social order is in no way endangered thereby; legal equality for all, independently of social position or race..." [202]

In November, 1938, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, who replied as follows:

London, 24th Nov. 1938/5699. Dear Dr. Black, "I am indeed touched by your letter of the 18th inst. conveying to me on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the deep horror of the suffering inflicted on the Jewish people throughout Europe. In the agony through which hundreds of thousands of my coreligionists are now passing, it is fortifying to read your strong repudiation of all persecution as unchristian, inhuman and pagan; and to learn that the love of God, love of fellow-man, and love of freedom rule with undiminished strength in little, but great Scotland. I should be glad if you would kindly convey to the General Assembly the deep felt thanks of my community for their kind expression of Christian sympathy with the suffering of Israel.

The General Assembly commented: <81>

"It is now the duty of the Church to contrive that the wave of sympathy shall not ebb, but, while it is on the flow, shall be turned into the only channel, which, as we believe, reaches the heart of the Jewish problem. The immediate duty, however, is to direct sympathy towards practical and generous action with regard to the gigantic Refugee problem which confronts the free peoples of the world..." [203]

The following statement was issued by the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland, in June 1939:

"The Conference notes with grave concern the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and America, and expresses its profound conviction that this tendency is directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It views with horror the treatment now being meted out to men, women and children in Germany on purely racial grounds, and regards with apprehension the possibility of the spread of such policy to other countries. It commands to the sacrificial sympathy of the Church, the efforts being made on behalf of non-Aryan Refugees both in Eire and in Northern Ireland, and suggests that they offer a most effective method of bearing Christian testimony against the terrible divisions of the present hour." [204]

17 THE UNITED STATES

Protestant Churches in America have protested against racial discrimination in general. We only record, however, the resolutions and statements, which expressly denounced anti-Semitism.

On March 22, 1933, American Christian clergymen and laymen appealed to the German people to put an end to the persecution of Jews. They urged preachers throughout the United States to rally their congregations on the following Sunday for a united stand against Hitlerism. The summons to the Churches was sponsored by the Interfaith Committee and signed by Bishop Manning (Episcopalian), Mr. Al Smith, the former Governor of New York State (a Roman Catholic), and others equally prominent. [205] <82>

On March 28, 1933, a mass meeting was held in New York, Madison Square Garden, attended by 20,000 persons, as a protest against anti-Semitic activities in Germany. 38,000 swarmed round the building to hear the voice of speakers brought to them through amplifiers. The meeting followed a day of fasting and prayer with similar protests being staged in 300 other cities. Former Governor Alfred Smith, Bishop William T. Manning, and Senator Robert F. Wagner were among the speakers. [206]

On May 26, 1933, a Manifesto signed by 1200 Protestant ministers from 42 States of the United States and Canada was published:

"We Christian ministers are greatly distressed at the situation of our Jewish brethren in Germany. In order to leave no room for doubt as to our feelings on this subject, we consider it an imperative duty to raise our voices in indignant and sorrowful protest against the pitiless persecution to which the Jews are subjected under Hitler's rule. We realize full well that there are religious and racial prejudices in America, against which we have repeatedly protested and for this very reason we all the more deeply deplore the retrogression which has supervened in Germany where so much had been achieved while we in America were still fighting for human rights. For many weeks we have waited, refusing to believe all the reports concerning a State policy against the Jews. But now that we possess the irrefutable testimony of facts, we can no longer remain silent. Hitler had long vowed implacable hatred against the Jews. One of the fundamental Nazi doctrines is that Jews are poisonous germs in German blood and must therefore be treated as a scourge. Hitler's followers now apply this doctrine. They systematically pursue a 'Cold Pogrom' of inconceivable cruelty against our Jewish brethren, dismissing them from important positions they had occupied, depriving them of civil and economic rights, and deliberately condemning those who survive to a life without legal protection, - as outcasts, threatening them with massacre should they make the slightest protest. We are convinced that the efforts made by Nazis to humiliate an entire section of the human family, are liable to cast the civilized world back into the clutches of mediaeval barbarism. We deplore the consequences which may ensue for the Jews and also for Christianity which tolerates this barbarous persecution, and, more particularly, for Germany herself. We are convinced that in thus protesting against Hitler's cruel anti-Semitism we are acting as sincere friends of the German nation." [207] <83>

Speaking of their "Jewish brethren in Germany", those 1200 Protestant ministers apparently had in mind the Jews of Germany in general, not just the Christians of Jewish origin.

* * *

The next statement to be recorded in this chapter was issued by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. This organization represented the great majority of American Protestants. The total membership of Churches affiliated with it was, in 1941-1942: 25,551.560. The Executive Committee of the Federal Council published the following statement in November 1935:

"At a recent meeting of protest against the treatment at present inflicted on Jews in Germany, the Assembly of the Church of England expressed the hope that other Christian bodies would join in this protest. We feel constrained to do so. We are members of churches which have numerous and close bonds of union with the German church. We recognise our indebtedness to the great German preachers and teachers of Christianity, who have done so much to enrich our common heritage from the days of Luther to the present day. After the last war we protested strongly against the limitations to which Germany was subjected by the Treaty of Versailles and made constant efforts for their suppression. For this very reason we consider it our duty to speak equally freely now that Germany is pursuing a policy, which threatens her with moral isolation. We protest against this policy because the treatment of the Jews is unworthy of a great nation. To treat a considerable part of the population as being essentially inferior for racial reasons only, and to impose restrictions on the normal life of persons whose families have lived in Germany for generations, and who have rendered eminent services in the realms of education, art, and government, is to violate the codes of honour and good faith which are the common property of civilized nations. But our reason for protesting goes far deeper. We protest against this policy because the philosophy on which it is based is a heathen philosophy. Founded on a religious interpretation of race, the actual treatment inflicted on the Jews raises far greater problems than any former persecutions of Jews and other minorities, which were founded on political and incidental considerations. It is an attempt of a tribal heathen movement, based on race, blood, and soil, to separate Christianity from its historical origin and a Christian nation from its religious past. All the different branches of the Christian Church are, therefore, in duty bound to protest, not only in the name of the human brotherhood, but also in the name of our Christian faith. [208] <84>

The meeting of protest mentioned at the beginning of this statement was held on November 20, 1935. [209] The response of the Federal Council came very promptly indeed. International contacts between Churches were a factor the importance of which can hardly be overestimated.

Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, the then General Secretary of the Federal Council, had had a personal interview with Hitler in the autumn of 1933. Before accepting Hitler's invitation to call, he was warned that no one was even permitted to mention the Jewish issue to him. Dr. Macfarland, however, had made it clear that he was not going there to discuss Tennyson or Browning and that he would have to be permitted to choose his own subjects. Word came that "His Excellency desired me to talk freely with him". Dr. Macfarland relates:

"I told Herr Hitler that, in my judgment, the German Evangelical Church could not and would not yield itself to his polito-social theory, including his so-called Aryan laws, and that if it did, it would not only cut itself off from the Christian churches of the world, but would cease to be Christian..." [209]

Dr. Macfarland followed up this conversation by correspondence. In one letter he wrote that the near complete hostility of the American people was deeply ethical in nature and could be modified only by two processes:

1. "A constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character, and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side... I also hope that, by a final settlement of the Jewish problem which will do full justice, this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed." [210] <85>

Apparently Hitler did not underestimate the influence of the American Churches: he replied to Dr. Macfarland's letters, stating that he wished "to promote the unity of the Church", that he accepted one of these letters "in the same spirit in which it was written" and that he thanked Dr. Macfarland for his "candid and sympathetic appeal". [211] On June 2, 1937, however, Dr. Macfarland published an open letter to Hitler, from which we quote the following:

"You especially demarcated the church's "confession" as a sacred ground on which the State could not and would not intrude, and I handed you a memorandum calling attention to the fact that by that confession the church was supernatural, supernational and superracial and that the so-called 'Aryan paragraph' cut right across the confession; that if the church accepted it, it would make a breach between the church in Germany and the 'positive Christianity' for which you declared you stood. As previously mentioned, you replied to later correspondence that you accepted my appeal 'in the spirit in which it was given'. That appeal was for a constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side'. And I added: 'I hope that this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed'... What now are the results of my continued study and how do they appear in the light of your earnest assurances?... Instead of doing justice to the Jews, you have permitted them to be harassed and despoiled. Your treatment of them has been ruthless, without the slightest appearance of mercy, even reminding one of the infamous edict of Herod in stretching the hand of violence to the littlest child. Your attitude toward the little handful of Jews in Germany and your so-called Aryan and Nordic ideas have had no little effect in confusing members of the Evangelical Church, so that, in this way, you divided instead of fulfilling 'the desire you expressed to me of uniting the church. You undermined the most basic ideal of Christianity, on which unity alone could be secured... I have been reading a paper called Der Stuermer. Not only does it explicitly teach and urge hate-hate-hate, but does it in forms whose viciousness never would be believed by one who had not seen it. The language in this paper is too vile for repetition, and its falsehoods are obvious to any ordinarily informed person who knows Germany. The best that one can say of the illustrations is to hope that they emanate from a disordered, rather than a depraved mind..." [212] <86>

I think that, if Dr. Macfarland had been a citizen of my country (the Netherlands), legal proceedings might have been instituted against him in those days, for "public offence to the Head of a friendly State".

The Home Missions Council, early in December 1937, issued a special Christmas message concerning Jewish and Christian relations which it addressed to all Christians of North America. We quote the following from this message:

"As Christians of the United States and Canada we desire to express to those Jews who are the victims of injustice and abuse our sincere sympathy, and we emphatically declare that such conduct is utterly alien to the teaching and spirit of the faith we profess and an affront to all our ideals of civil liberty and justice." [213]

* * *

The Executive Committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America proposed to set aside November 20, 1938, as "the occasion when prayer will be sought in the United States for refugees, both Christian and Jewish". [214] The officials of both the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish Organizations, following the example set by the Federal Council, designated the same date for a period of prayer and intercession. The Governors of about a score of States issued statements or proclamations urging citizens to repair to their places of worship on that day for united prayer for the suffering. The day of prayer was widely observed in all parts of the country and in all the churches. [215] The Executive of the Federal Council had issued "an appeal to all church people to respond generously to the efforts for the relief of refugees as carried on by the American Committee for Christian German Refugees and also by the Catholic and Jewish organizations". [216]

When the first reports of the new measures of oppression and persecution of the Jews in Germany appeared in the press, the Federal Council's office invited outstanding Christians, both ministers and laymen, to express their views and give wide publicity to them. <87>

Among the lay voices, which were most widely heard across the nation was that of Honourable Herbert Hoover, who, in a message telegraphed to the Federal Council, gave expression to the sympathy of all thoughtful Christian people. A statement of Dr. Edgar De Witt Jones of Detroit, President of the Federal Council, was also quoted in all parts of the country. [217]

On the evening of November 13, 1938, the Federal Council of Churches sponsored a national broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System in which Christian sympathy was again expressed and carried to every part of the nation. There also was a national broadcast under the auspices of the National Conference of Jews and Christians, on November 20, 1938. [218]

On January 9, 1939, a petition on behalf of German refugee children was left for President Roosevelt at the White House by a deputation of clergymen. The petition was signed by leaders of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. It read as follows:

"The American people has made clear its reaction to the oppression of all minority groups, religious and racial, throughout Germany. It has been especially moved by the plight of the children. Every heart has been touched, and the nation has spoken out its sorrow and dismay through the voices of its statesmen, teachers and religious leaders. Americans have felt that protest, however vigorous and sympathy, however deep, are not enough, and that these must translate themselves into such action as shall justify faith. We have been stirred by the knowledge that Holland and England have opened their doors and their homes to many of these children. We conceive it to be our duty, in the name of the American tradition and the religious spirit common to our nation to urge the people, by its Congress and Executive, to express sympathy through special treatment of the young, robbed of country, homes and parents. A heartening token of the mood of America is to be found in the fact that thousands of Americans of all faiths have made known their eagerness to take these young children into their homes, without burden or obligation to the State. Working within and under the laws of Congress, through special enactment if necessary, the nation can offer sanctuary to a part of these children by united expression of its will to help. <88> To us it seems that the duty of Americans in dealing with the youthful victims of a regime which punishes innocent and tender children as if they were offenders, is to remember the admonition of Him who said, 'Suffer little children to come unto me'. And in that spirit we call on all Americans to join together without regard to race, religion or creed in offering refuge to children as a token of our sympathy and as a symbol of our faith in the ideals of human brotherhood." [220]

Senator Robert F. Wagner, attempting to implement the clergymen's proposal, introduced a resolution in the Senate. Known as the Child Refugee Bill, it proposed that a maximum of ten thousand children under the age of fourteen be admitted in 1939, and a similar number in 1940. Their entry would be considered apart from and in addition to the regular German quota. [221] The Executive of the Federal Council supported the Bill:

"In the extraordinary circumstances which have created the problem of Jewish and Christian refugees from Germany, we feel that it is not enough to call upon other nations to help or to voice our protests but some such practical step as the one here contemplated is imperative and will do much to facilitate a larger approach to the problem of which it is but one part." [222]

On July 1, 1939, the proposed Bill was modified: the twenty thousand childrens' visas would be issued against the German quota, not in excess of them. Senator Wagner, realizing that the twenty thousand children's visas might become twenty thousand death warrants for adults they would replace, withdrew his proposal. [223] <89>

In March 1939, the Federal Council urged the United States to continue to provide asylum for refugees of other countries in the face of any legislative proposals to suspend immigration or curtail existing quotas. Declaring that the Churches were deeply concerned with the refugee problem and that "as Christians we have responsibility for suffering human beings as children of our common Father wherever they may be", the Council said:

"We, therefore, urge our government to maintain its historic policy of friendliness to refugees. We oppose legislative proposals, which would suspend immigration at this time or curtail the established quotas."

In its objection to any change in the immigration policy the Council pointed out that refugees "would be consumers as well as producers" and added:

"However, even if they were not an economic asset as well as a liability, we would still have a Christian responsibility to them." [224]

In April 1939, the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church issued the following Resolution on behalf of aid to refugees:

"In view of the persecution of minorities now taking place in Europe, we, as Christians and members of the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in keeping with the traditional spirit of our country, reaffirm our conviction that the United States should continue to show its spint of generosity and hospitality in opening its doors to afflicted people. We commend the program, as prepared by the Episcopal Committee on German Refugees, to the interest and support of all members of the Church, reminding ourselves of our Lord's admonition: 'in as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'."

The program prepared by the Committee on German Refugees called for co-operation with local refugee committees in helping to obtain employment, in placing children in homes and in obtaining affidavits of support for individual immigrants. [225] To the best of my knowledge, there is no other country in which Churches and Church leaders in those days so unequivocally demanded asylum for the refugees.

So far we have recorded actions and statements on behalf of the refugees only. The following statements also denounced anti-Semitism in Germany and/or in the United States. <90>

The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. stated, at the end of 1938:

"... We are deeply shocked at the continuance of persecutions based on race in Germany, Austria, Rumania and other nations. We sympathize with our Jewish brethren in the United States, many of whose relatives are the innocent victims of fanatical hatred abroad. We commend the National Conference of Jews and Christians for all its labour to the end that race murders and race discriminations shall not happen here..." [226]

In its Bulletin (February, 1939) the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ published the following article:

The Christian Attitude towards Anti-Semitism

Every thoughtful Christian must gratefully acknowledge his spiritual indebtedness to the Hebrews. We Christians have inherited the ethical and religious insights of Israel. We hold them with a difference - at one point with a momentous difference - but we can never forget that the historic roots of our faith are in the Hebrew people. From Israel we inherit the Ten Commandments, which are still our basic moral standards. From Israel we inherit the priceless treasure of the Psalms, which are an essential part of Christian worship around the world. From Israel we inherit the vision of social justice which has come to us through Amos and Isaiah and Micah. From Israel we inherit even our own unique Christian classic, the New Testament, nearly all of which (if not all) was written by Jews. A Christian who faces the modem world must also be conscious of a present spiritual kinship with his Jewish neighbours to whom their religious heritage is still a vital force. That kinship is grounded in our common faith in the ultimate spiritual foundations of the universe. Over against those who adhere to a materialistic philosophy of life and a mechanistic conception of human destiny, we recognize ourselves as at one with the Jews in the first sublime affirmation of the Pentateuch: 'In the beginning God'. Over against current disillusionment and despair Christian and Hebrew stand together in their belief in the one Holy God Who is the Creator of all and whose righteous will gives meaning and direction to life. A Christian who knows anything of history must also speak a word of confession. For he cannot help recalling how grievously the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of men who called themselves Christians. The record of the treatment of Jews in Europe through long centuries is one which Christians of to-day view with penitence and sorrow. One has also regretfully to admit that the day of cruel treatment of the Jews by some who call themselves Christians is not yet a thing of the past. Even in our own country there are misguided groups which circulate statements that spread a poison of mistrust and hate which is antithetical to the true genius both of America and of the Christian religion. Anti-Semitism is inherently un-Christian, contrary to the plain teaching and spirit of our Lord, and it can be asserted with confidence that an intolerant attitude towards the Jews is opposed by the great body of American Christians... <91> But everything which has happened since shows that what started as a movement against the Jews turns out to be a movement against Christianity also... [227]

In May 1939, the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. stated:

"... We confess the sins of our country in this respect. We condemn the attacks on Jews and Christians and other minority groups throughout the world. We would be lacking in a sense of common morality and decency if we did not express our strong disapproval of such an outrageous assault by any government upon an innocent and defenceless people. We urge our government to continue its efforts to make generous arrangement for the settlement of refugees, so continuing our national tradition of being an asylum for the oppressed of all the nations." [228]

The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, attended by 200 pastors and delegates, adopted (June, 1939) the social welfare report which said in part:

"The failure of the Church to recognize the Jew has behind it a record of misunderstanding, intolerance and spiritual malpractice that has been unequaled in dealing with any other people. Even America is not free from the blight of anti-Jewish prejudice. Both Jew and Gentile are responsible for existing conditions and both must co-operate for their betterment. Christians must rebuke all anti-Semitism... Third, in reference to the refugee problem, a linking up of our efforts and agencies with all others in more adequately caring for those who are so greatly in need. Fourth, a wholehearted endorsement of the legislation permitting 10,000 children (refugees) to be received each year for two years." [229]

18 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF CHURCHES

The World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches was constituted at Constance, in 1914, at the eve of the first world war. Its supreme body, the International Council, was composed of some 145 members appointed by the various National Councils. <92> In some countries, especially on the continent of Europe, the National Councils worked in close relation with ecclesiastical authorities; in most areas, however, they remained entirely independent agencies, based on the personal adhesion of their members. The Executive Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Sofia, 1933, unanimously adopted the following Resolution:

"... We especially deplore the fact that the State measures against the Jews in Germany have had such an effect on public opinion that in some circles the Jewish race is considered a race of inferior status. We protest against the resolution of the Prussian General Synod and other Synods [230] which apply the Aryan paragraph of the State to the Church, putting serious disabilities upon ministers and church officers who by chance of birth are non-Aryans, which we believe to be a denial of the explicit teaching and spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." [231]

The International Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Chamby (August, 1935), adopted the following Resolution:

"In view of the pitiable situation of refugees and stateless persons in Europe, having regard to the policy of expulsion which is being pursued by the majority of the European States, to the inadequacy of the measures for providing refugees with valid identification papers and residence and labour permits, and recognising the fact that a turn for the better cannot be attained by legislation undertaken by individual States but only on the basis of international agreements, the World Alliance most warmly welcomes the initiative taken by the Norwegian Government which, in the spirit of Fritjof Nansen, has proposed to place the situation of the refugees upon the agenda of the next plenary assembly of the League of Nations. It expresses the hope that in this way it will be possible to secure for refugees and stateless persons a minimum of individual rights and, by the setting up of a central organisation for refugees, within the framework of the League of Nations, to provide a basis for the settlement of the problem. In order to make this resolution effective, the World Alliance resolves: a. to bring the text of this resolution of the Norwegian Government to the knowledge of the General Secretary of the League of Nations and of all States members of the League of Nations; b. to request the Churches and organisations affiliated to the World Alliance in the different countries to make representations to their governments in the spirit of the resolution before the next meeting of the League of Nations in order to obtain the support of these governments for the Norwegian initiative." [232] <93>

Another International Organization of Churches, more influential than the "World Alliance", was the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, which had its first world conference in 1925, in Stockholm, and its second in 1937, in Oxford. Its purpose was "to stimulate Christian action in society". Its President, Dr. George Bell (Bishop of Chichester) wrote a letter to Dr. Kapler, President of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Germany, dated May 17, 1933:

"... We do not wish to enter into political questions, nor indeed is it our business to do so. At the same time it would not be fair to disguise from our friends in Germany that certain recent events, especially the action taken against the Jews, have caused and continue to cause us anxiety and distress; and we feel that we ought to share our concern with you here..." [233]

The annual meeting of Life and Work was held at Novi Sad, in Yugoslavia, on 9-12 September, 1933. A German delegation under the leadership of Dr. Heckel, who supported Hitler's policy, was present at the meeting. The minutes record that representatives of other Churches had expressed grave anxiety over the severe action taken against people of Jewish origin. [234] Bishop Bell proposed that, in addition to this, he should write a letter to the leaders of the German Church. This proposal was adopted unanimously. Only Dr. Heckel abstained from voting. Bishop Bell wrote this letter to the German Reich Bishop Mueller, on October 23, 1933. He referred to two features, which were gravely disturbing to the Christian conscience, namely, the adoption of the Aryan Paragraph by the Prussian Church Synod [235] and certain other Synods, and the forcible suppression of minority opinion. Mueller's reply of 8 December was intended to be reassuring. The enactment of the Aryan Paragraph had been stopped, and he hoped for an opportunity when they might discuss together the problems of race, the state, and international order. [236] The Executive Committee of the Ecumenical Council of Life and Work at Novi Sad issued the following "Appeal on Behalf of German Refugees" in November, 1933: <94>

"A new appeal is hereby addressed to Christians, at this Christmastide. It is an appeal to help those who are suffering because there is no place for them in Germany: Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees. They are dispersed in Palestine and in different lands of Europe. They are in a deplorable situation and a great number of them are destitute... The gifts of the Churches will constitute a welcome proof of that truly ecumenical and Christian spirit which, beyond all differences of race and class, regards every man as a brother." George Cicestr, President of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work; Germanos, Archbishop of Thyatira, Co-President; W.A. Brown, President of the Administrative Committee; Waldemar Ammundsen, Interim President of the European Section; Wilfred Monod, Vice President. [237]

* * *

The International Missionary Council was organized in 1921, to co-ordinate missionary work throughout the world. Its "Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews" met at Vienna, 28 June-2 July, 1937. A report of the Subcommittee on Anti-Semitism and the Church was submitted, and adopted in the following form:

"We desire to record our conviction that in contemporary anti-Semitism we face an extraordinary menace against which all Christians must be warned. All forms of hatred and persecution must be deplored by Christians, and their victims must be succoured; but there exists to-day a type of racial anti-Semitic propaganda inspired by hatred of everything springing from Jewish sources; and this creates more crucial issues for Christianity than ordinary outbursts of race feeling. Christian Churches must be warned that they cannot be silent in the presence of this propaganda, still less connive at or participate in the extension of its errors and falsehoods, without betraying Christ, undermining the basis of the Church, and incurring the most severe judgment of God. The Christian Church must let no doubt about this attitude prevail in the eyes of the world. Realizing that enmity to the Jews has now become a cloak for the forces of anti-Christ, and conceals hatred for Christ and His Gospel, the Christian Church must reject anti-Semitism with complete conviction. <95> To realize its true nature and to vindicate its right to the title of the 'Body of Christ', the Church must preach the Gospel and open its fellowship to men of all race, including the Jews. Our mission to the Jews cannot consistently be carried out without at the same time combating anti-Semitism among Christians, and giving more tangible evidence than has been given of our sympathy with Jews and Hebrew Christians in their present distress. Anti-Semitism can and should be combated systematically: 1. By suitable literature, capable of influencing specially wide classes, also by sustained treatment in Christian Reviews and newspapers. 2. By occasional conversations, discussions, and lectures, on the destiny and the hope of the people of Israel. 3. By sincere and friendly discussion between Jews and Christians. 4. By the realization among Christians of the treasures committed to them (Christianizing of Christians)." [238]

The same Committee submitted the following resolution to the Oxford Conference, in 1937:

"The International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews desires to lay before the Oxford Conference on Church and Community and State the problem of Anti-Semitism. The fact of Anti-Semitism is proved, by the ample material in the possession of the Committee to be of growing importance and menace in the world. It constitutes one of the principal denials of modern life of the Christian doctrine of man. It is an attack upon the unity of the Una Sancta, it is even a denial of the person of Christ Himself. It has been largely instrumental in aggravating existing economic and social strains until they have become intolerable. The human misery created, maintained and at the same time concealed by the influence of Anti-Semitism is difficult to estimate. Graver, however, than the volume of human misery is the poisoning of the spirit, the drying up of sympathy and the warping of judgment caused by the influence of Anti-Semitism, especially among the young. Deepest of all is the denial which Anti-Semitism offers to the Unity of the Church, and to the meaning of the Person of Christ Himself. The Committee would further ask the Conference to consider the terrible fact that this problem is not, like many on the Conference will consider, that of an influence external to the Christian Church with which it must make its account, but also of an evil within the Church. Anti-Semitism antedates Christianity and it is not suggested that it is a purely Christian phenomenon, but it is aided by false Christian teaching and it results in the appalling situation, present in several countries where Christian Churches are reluctant, or frankly refuse, to receive a Jewish convert. <96> It is plain that where racial and physical conditions of church membership override the conversion of heart and will, the Christian religion has ceased to exist except in a vain form. But this devitalising influence is present within the Church, not only in one country but in many, and far more widely than is suspected. The Committee therefore invites the Oxford Conference to do two things: in the first place, realizing that the Conference can make its voice heard widely among the Churches of all lands it begs the Conference to speak out clearly on the dangers of Anti-Semitism to the Church itself and to recognize openly the total impossibility of a Church tainted with this form of racial absolutism bearing any valid witness to the word of God in the world. Secondly, it asks that in any provision that is made after the Conference for international Christian study of the great problems that confront the Church in the modem world, attention shall be given to this problem of Anti-Semitism. The International Committee which has already collected a certain amount of information on the subject would gladly co-operate in such a study." [239]

The Oxford Conference (July, 1937), organized by "Life and Work", was an event of major importance. [240] The 425 regular members of the Conference included 300 delegates officially appointed by the Churches, representing 120 communions in forty countries, and constituting a cross-section of Christendom, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church; only some personal observers from that Communion were present by invitation. Not less than 300 delegates came from the United States and the British Common-wealth. The Orthodox Churches and the Lesser Eastern Churches were represented by some two score dignitaries and scholars. This delegation represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Church in Exile, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, and the Church of the Assyrians. <97> German Church leaders had taken a prominent part in the preparations for the Conference, but the German secret police had seized the passports of leading members of the Confessing Church, including those of Dibelius and Niemoeller, who had been chosen as delegates to Oxford. On July 1, 1937, before the Conference opened, Niemoeller was arrested. Other delegates of the Confessing Church who still retained their passports decided that, unless all the representatives of the Confessing Church were allowed to attend, none of them would come, thereby demonstrating their unity. [241]

The German authorities must have realized that the absence of the leaders of the Confessing Church would make a bad impression on world opinion, but apparently they were also aware that the position of Niemoeller and his friends would have been strengthened, if they had been able to attend the Conference.

The Oxford Conference sent a "Message to the Churches of Christ throughout the World". We quote the following:

"The Christian sees distinctions of race as part of God's purpose to enrich mankind with a diversity of gifts. Against racial pride or race-antagonism the Church must set its face implacably as rebellion against God. Especially in its own life and worship there can be no place for barriers because of race or colour. Similarly the Christian accepts national communities as part of God's purpose to enrich and diversify human life. Every man is called of God to serve his fellows in the community to which he belongs. But national egotism tending to the suppression of other nationalities or of minorities is, no less than individual egotism, a sin against the Creator of all peoples and races. The deification of nation, race, or class, or of political or cultural ideals, is idolatry, and can only lead to increasing division and disaster." [242]

We also quote the following from the Oxford Conference's "Longer Report on Church and Community":

"Each of the races of mankind has been blessed by God with distinctive and unique gifts. Each has made, and seems destined to continue to make, distinctive and unique contributions to the enrichment of mankind. All share alike in the love, the concern and the compassion of God. Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such a thing as despising another race or a member of another race. Moreover, when God chose to reveal Himself in human form, the Word became flesh in One of a race, then as now, widely despised... <98> Against racial pride, racial hatreds and persecutions, and the exploitation of other races in all their forms, the Church is called by God to set its face implacably and to utter its word unequivocally, both within and without its own borders. There is a special need at this time that the Church throughout the world should bring every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism... The recrudescence of pitiless cruelty, hatred, and race-discrimination in the modern world (including most notably anti-Semitism) is one of the major signs of its social disintegration. To these must be brought not only the weak rebuke of words but the powerful rebuke of deeds. For the Church has been called into existence by God not only for itself but for the world; and only by going out of itself in the work of Christ can it find unity in itself." [243]

An immense effort was made, notably in the Anglo-Saxon world, to bring home the message of the Conference to the rank and file of the Churches. The message was referred to by Church leaders when the fight against anti-Semitism intensified as, for instance, by the 170 ministers in the city of New York, 1941, [244] and Rev. Bertrand in France, in his circular letter of June 11, 1942. [245] Many Church leaders who were present at the Oxford Conference were to denounce anti-Semitism vehemently and publicly, during the Second World War. We mention: Dr. Visser 't Hooft, the General Secretary; the Archbishop of York (Dr. Temple); the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Bell); Archbishop Eidem, of Sweden; Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, of Denmark; Archbishop Stephan, of Bulgaria; Dr. Samuel Osusky, Czechoslovakia; the Rev. Marc Boegner, France; Prof. Emil Brunner, Switzerland; and Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, the United States.

Another statement to be recorded in this chapter was adopted by the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, on its meeting at Larvik (Norway), in August, 1938:

"The Council appeals to its members to do all they can to awaken public opinion in their own countries to the great evils involved in the systematic ostracism and persecution now being directed against the Jewish race and against thousands of Christians who have kinship with the Jews. Whilst acknowledging the weakness, hesitancy and failure of Christians in this matter, it is appalled by the growth of racial and religious intolerance throughout the world. <99> It holds it to be a total denial of faith in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men as revealed in Jesus Christ and it calls upon all Christians to unite their efforts so that in a distracted and divided world Christ may be made manifest 'Who is our peace. Who made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us'." [246]

* * *

In 1938, two great Ecumenical Movements - Faith and Order and Life and Work - associated together in forming a Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches (in process of formation). The World Council of Churches was officially constituted in Amsterdam, in 1948.

On November 16, 1938, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, H. L. Henriod, General Secretary of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches and Adolf Keller, Director of Inter-Church Aid sent the following letter to the member Churches:

"At the moment when the terrible persecution of the Jewish population in Germany and in other Central European countries has come to a violent climax, it is our duty to remind ourselves of the stand which we have taken as an ecumenical movement against anti-Semitism in all its forms. The World Alliance at the meeting of its Executive in Sofia in 1933 and at its recent Assembly at Larvik in August 1938, and the Conference on Church, Community and State at Oxford in 1937 have unequivocally expressed the Christian attitude on this point and called upon the Churches to help those who suffer from racial persecution. We suggest that at this time all Churches should take immediate action based on these statements. The most practical action would seem to be: 1. Corporate prayers of intercession. 2. An approach to the Governments of the various countries requesting that they should act immediately. a. in order to allow a larger percentage of non-Aryan refugees to enter provisionally or definitely into the country concerned; b. to further without delay the plan proposed by the Evian Conference [247] for securing a permanent settlement of a large number of actual and potential non-Aryan refugees. 3. Undertake as a Church the responsibility of the maintenance of some non-Aryan and Christian families and particularly of at least one non-Aryan pastor or theological student. <100> We put ourselves at your disposal for further information on any of these projects." [248]

We know that Church leaders in the United States made the requested "approach to the Government". [249]

The International Missionary Council held a large international conference at Tambaram, Madras, in December, 1938. It reiterated the Vienna (1937) statement of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews on anti-Semitism [250], expressed "its deep concern about the increasingly tragic plight of the Jews", and urged "that this constitutes a claim of first importance on the Christian Church". It recommended:

1. That prayer should be regularly made in Christian Churches, and particularly on Good Friday and the Jewish Day of Atonement, for all Jews and non-Aryans who are suffering persecution. 2. That individuals, Churches and Christian Councils in countries suitable for the reception of immigrants should use their influence, wherever possible, to secure an open door for refugees. 3. That Christian people in all countries should make a special effort to welcome and help such of their refugee brethren as arrive in their country. 4. That an appeal be made in all churches for help for recognized refugee funds..." [251]

In January 1939, at the First ordinary session of the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches, the Bishop of Chichester proposed that the Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems.

"He felt that the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans. He meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others, albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the Christian Church. Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the first secretary of this new Department for Aid to Refugees." [252] <101>

III

DURING THE WAR

19 HISTORICAL EVENTS, 1939-1945

1939 Sept. 1 Germany attacks Poland. Sept. 3-4 Great Britain and France declare war upon Germany. Sept. 17 Russia invades Poland. Nov. 30 Russia attacks Finland.

1940 March 20 Finland accepts peace with Russia. Apr. 9 Germany occupies Denmark and attacks Norway. May 10 Germany attacks the Netherlands and Belgium. May 14 Capitulation of the Netherlands. May 28 Capitulation of Belgium. May 20-June 4: Evacuation of the British expedition force at Dunkirk. June 10 Italy attacks France. June 24 France concludes armistice with the Axis. Aug.-Nov. The "Battle of Britain": Hitler tries to subdue Great Britain by air raids. Oct. 28 Italy attacks Greece. Dec. 7-11 Victory of Great Britain in North Africa.

1941 April Victory of Germany in North Africa. April 6 Germany attacks Yugoslavia and Greece. April 13 Belgrade occupied. April 27 Athens occupied. May 10 Rudolf Hess flies to Scotland. June 22 Germany invades Russia. Dec. 6 Russian counter offensive; Germany fails to take Moscow. Dec. 7 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour. Dec. 11 Hitler declares war upon the United States.

1942 Jan. 20 The Wannsee Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" in Europe. June Rommel defeats Great Britain in North Africa and captures El Alamein. Aug. 23 Germany's sixth army reaches the Volga near Stalingrad. Nov. 2 Montgomery breaks through at El Alamein. Nov. 8 Allied forces land in Morocco and Algeria. Nov. 11 Germany seizes the unoccupied zone of France. Nov. 19 Russia launches its counter offensive near Stalingrad.

1943 Jan. 3 End of the Battle of Stalingrad. April 19-May 16 Warsaw Ghetto uprising. July 10 Allied forces land on Sicily. Sept. 3 Allied forces land in Southern Italy. Dec. The Soviet armies approach the Polish and Rumanian frontiers.

1944 June 6 The beginning of the Invasion. July 20 Attempt on Hitler's life. August Russia conquers Rumania. Aug. 25 Liberation of Paris. Sept. 3 Liberation of Brussels.

1945 Jan. 17 Russia captures Warsaw. Feb. 13 Russia captures Budapest. Apr. 30 Hitler commits suicide. May 2 Capitulation of Berlin. May 7 Unconditional surrender of Germany. <106>

20 GERMANY

Deportations from Austria and the Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia) began in the winter of 1939/1940. On February 12, 1940, Jews were deported from Stettin. On July 31, 1941, Heydrich was charged by Goering with the preparation and execution of the "Final Solution". On October 14, 1941, the systematic deportation of the Jews from the Reich began. On January 20, 1942, the Wannsee-Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe" was held. From July, 1942, the selections for the gas chambers took place in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. On June 19, 1943, Goebbels declared Berlin to be free of Jews. An estimated number of 3,000 Jews, however, succeeded in surviving "illegally", until the end of the war.

It is, as has been explained before, not my intention to record the help rendered by individuals to Jews. There are, however, indications that organized help to Jews did not wholly stop with the closure of Rev. Grueber's office. [253] Mr. Krakauer relates how he and his wife were helped and hidden during the last years of the war. [254] Not less than 34 ministers of the CONFESSING Church were involved in the rescue of these two people. They all had them in their homes for some days or longer, as staying at the same place for too long a period was too dangerous. It appears that there existed a kind of organization of pastors who passed on persecuted Jewish people from one manse to another. The book also shows how difficult it was in those days, to help and hide people who had no identity cards and no ration cards. Mr. Krakauer stated: "On May 20, 1945, I had the opportunity to speak with Landesbischof D. Wurm, the highest prelate of the country (of Wurttemberg), and to thank him for the fact that by his attitude he had made it possible for his pastors to interest themselves actually on our behalf". [255] Some Church leaders did not speak out publicly, or, only spoke when it was too late; the reason may just have been that they were afraid to accept the personal risk involved. We know of Bishop Wurm's protests, which came late, even too late to do any good for the Jews in general. <107> I do not know very much about his "attitude" in the time before he took official action. The fact that Mr. Krakauer felt that he should thank the Bishop, throws an important sidelight on the dilemma which Church leaders sometimes had to face. If they spoke out publicly against the persecutions, they did not only risk their own freedom and life, but they also risked the lives of the persecuted Jews whom they secretly tried to save. Mr. Krakauer's story should certainly be read by anyone who is interested in the attitude of Protestants in Hitler's Germany toward the Jews.

No public statement whatsoever against anti-Semitism was issued by the CONFESSING Church in Germany, or by any of its leaders, from the end of 1938 until 1943. In April, 1943, a letter was sent by a group of Christian laymen to the Lutheran Bishop of Bavaria. The Bishop asked for at least two signatures to enable him to raise the matter officially, but no one was willing to sign. However, the letter had an indirect influence because Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg read it, and then sent two letters to the German Government.

Letter of a Group of Christian Laymen:

"As Christians we no longer can tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent in regard to the persecution of the Jews. in Churches where the true Gospel is preached, all members are equally responsible for supporting such preaching. We are therefore aware that we also, are equally guilty for the Church's failure in this matter. The inclusion of the so-called 'privileged' Jews in this persecution is the next threat: the dissolving of marriages which are valid according to God's law, should cause the Church to protest, in faithfulness to the World of God, against this violation of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, thus, at last, doing what it should have done long ago. What moves us is the simple commandment to love one's neighbour, as expounded by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Here He explicitly precluded any limitation of our love only to members of our own faith, race or nation. At this time every 'non-Aryan' in Germany, whether Jew or Christian, 'has fallen among murderers'; we are challenged as to whether we will act towards him as did the priest and the Levite, or as the Good Samaritan?

The Duty of the Church <108>

No 'Jewish Question' can release us from this decision. Rather should the Church declare that the Jewish question is primarily an evangelical question and not a political one. The politically unusual, and unique existence and character of the Jews is, according to the Holy Scriptures, based on the fact that God has chosen this people as the instrument for His revelation. The Church, just as the first apostles after the crucifixion, must tirelessly testify to the Jews: 'Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts of the Apostles 3, 26). This testimony of the Church will only seem worthy of belief to Israel, if the Church is also concerned about the Jews who 'have fallen among murderers'. The Church must especially resist 'Christian' anti-Semitism within its borders, which excuses the actions of the non-Christian world against the Jews, as well as, the inactivity of the Church in this matter, by saying that a 'deserved' curse lies upon Israel. Let us not forget the apostle's exhortation to us Gentile Christians: 'Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee' (Romans 11, 20, 21). The Church must testify to the State about the purpose of Israel in the plan of salvation, thus actively resisting every attempt, to 'solve' the Jewish question, according to a man-made political gospel, which brings about the annihilation of the Jews. This is an attempt to fight against God and his first commandment. The Church must confess that she, as the true Israel, is united with Jewry by indissoluble ties, both in her guilt and in her right to the promises of God. She must not try any more to remain in safety while Israel is attacked. Rather, she must testify that by the attack on Israel, the Church and her Lord Jesus are also being attacked.

God remains faithful to his Covenant.

The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals the kind of example which should be given by the Church, in regard to the Jewish question. The phenomenal history of the Jews, in which the prophecy has been fulfilled: 'they shall be a curse, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations' (Jeremiah 29, 18), proclaims to the whole world that the God who gave the first commandment, by his dealings with Israel has manifested to the nations his sovereignty. The Church must explain this phenomenon. She also must, by her faithful testimony, make certain that the authorities are not able to avoid the challenge by obliterating the phenomenon of the Jews. She must therefore proclaim the message of God, who brought both Israel and the Church 'out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' (Exodus 20, 2). Notwithstanding all the unfaithfulness of those He has elected among both Jews and Gentiles, He remains faithful to his Covenant. The Church thus proclaims to the authorities that only by faith in Jesus Christ can they be delivered from their demonic political 'gospel', which they in their obsession wish to realize, being unrestrained by the law of God. The Church, therefore, must proclaim the commandments concerning our neighbour to the authorities in connection with their attitude to Israel, but also the first commandment concerning their attitude towards God. For the rulers can only exercise their powers rightly by upholding the law rightly, in obedience to the first commandment. <109>

A Public Protest Demanded

The protest of the Church against the persecution of the Jews in Germany thus becomes a specially important example of the witness she is charged to give against all violations of the ten commandments by any power. The Church must warn the State, in the name of God, not with political arguments, as has happened occasionally, that it must 'not oppress the stranger, the fatherless and the widow' (Jeremiah 7, 6). She must remind the State of its duty to maintain public justice in an orderly, legal system based on humane laws; of the commandment to execute punishment in righteousness; of its duty to protect the oppressed and to respect certain basic rights of its citizens, etc. This witness of the Church must be made publicly, either through preaching or by means of a special pronouncement of the Bishop in his function as Shepherd and Watchman. Only thus can the Church fulfil her duty towards all who, either in a legislative or in an executive capacity, participate in this persecution. Also the conscience of the stricken Jews and the Christian community, which is tempted to deny its faith, must be instructed. So far the Church in Germany cannot be said to have made such a witness, for nothing that she has said in public has done justice to her responsibility to preach the truth in this respect. [256]

It is significant that the authors of this letter claimed that as Christians they no longer could tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent regarding the persecution of the Jews; that all members of the Church are equally responsible for supporting such preaching (of the true Gospel) and that the protest of the Church must be made publicly. Yet, they themselves refused to sign their own letter.

On January 28 1943, Bishop D. Wurm of Wurttemberg sent a letter to a "Senior State Official" (Ministerial Director Dr. Dill, of the Ministry of Interior). We quote the following:

"... Apart from these matters, ecclesiastical in the limited sense of the word, I would like to raise another delicate and difficult, but unfortunately, unavoidable point. Wide circles, and not only those in the Confessing Church, are unhappy at the manner in which the war against other races and nations is conducted. <110> From soldiers on home leave we learn how Jews and Poles are systematically murdered in the occupied territories. Also those who objected to Jewish predominance in public life (even at a time when the entire press was in favour of the Jews), cannot assume that one nation is entitled to exterminate another through measures applied to individuals irrespective of their personal blame. The putting to death of people without any trial, solely on the basis of their belonging to a different nationality, or on account of their diseased health, clearly contradicts the divine commandments, and therefore also every concept of justice and humanity which is indispensable in a civilised nation. There can be no blessing on such an attitude. It leads one to consider the fact that from the time these measures were adopted, the German forces have not been as successful as they were at the beginning of the war. Many Germans see in these occurrences not only a disaster but also a sign of guilt, which will bring its own vengeance. Their moral burden would be lightened, if a courageous and noble-minded decision were taken by the Government, which would cleanse the besmirched shield of honour of the German nation. The Evangelical Church has not publicly protested before, to avoid embarrassing the German nation in the eyes of foreign countries. But now that new and great sacrifices are being demanded of the German people, it should also be granted relief from its moral burdens." [257]

On July 16, 1943, Bishop Wurm sent a letter to all the Members of the Government, in which he pleaded for the "so-called privileged non-Aryans". We quote the following:

"... In the name of God, and for the sake of the German nation, we urgently request that the responsible leaders of the Reich stop the persecution and the annihilation of so many men and women, which under German domination is being carried out without any judicial sentence. Now that non-Aryans under German domination have to a great extent been removed, it is much to be feared that individuals, the so-called privileged non-Aryans, who until now were spared, are now in danger of being treated likewise. In particular we emphatically protest against those measures which threaten to dissolve legal marriages and thus penalize the children born out of these marriages. These aims are, like other actions of annihilation taken against non-Aryans, in flat contradiction to God's commandment, and they violate the foundation of all Western existence and human values in general..." [258] <111> On December 20, 1943, another letter was sent by Bishop Wurm, to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers:

"... Not because of any philosemitic sympathies but solely from religious and ethical considerations, I must declare, in accordance with the opinion of all positive Christian circles in Germany, that we as Christians consider the policy of annihilation of the Jews as a terrible injustice, fatal to the German people. Killing without military necessity and without trial is contrary to God's commandments, even though it is ordered by the Goverment. Just as every conscious transgression of God's commandments, it will recoil sooner or later on its perpetrators. Our people in many respects is experiencing sufferings which it has to bear from the air-attacks of the enemy, as if in retribution for what was inflicted upon the Jews..." [259]

A Public Protest, issued not by one Church leader but by the CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union, was the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment":

14. "The sword is given to the State only that it may execute criminals and for the destruction of enemies in war-time. What it does beyond that, it does arbitrarily and to its own detriment. When life is taken for other reasons than those mentioned, men's confidence in one another is undermined and thus the unity of the people is destroyed. The divine world order knows no such terms as 'to expunge', 'to liquidate' or 'valueless life' with regard to human beings. To slay human beings simply because they are related to criminals, because they are old or mentally afflicted, or because they belong to a different race, is not the use of the sword sanctioned by the Scripture... 17. In our time, especially, elderly people are more than ever before dependent on our help. The same is the case with the incurably ill, the weak-minded and the mentally diseased. We must also not forget those who receive no support - or almost no support - from public funds. In such matters the Christian is not concerned with public opinion. His neighbour is always the one who is helpless and who especially needs him, and he makes no distinction between races, nations or religions. <112> God alone has authority over human life. All life is sacred to him, even that of the people of Israel. Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God, but neither as human beings nor as Christians are we called upon to pass sentence on their unbelief..." [260]

The publication of the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment" was an act of courage but one shudders to read the opinion that "Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God". It was only after the war that the Kirchentag (1961) declared: "Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other: ...God hath not cast away his people, which He foreknew". [261] Such declarations were lacking at the time when they were most necessary.

Several leaders of the CONFESSING Church have severely criticized their Church, and themselves. Rev. Martin Niemoeller, who himself was imprisoned from 1937 until the end of the war, stated:

"Nobody wants to take the responsibility for the guilt. Nobody admits to guilt but instead points to his neighbour. Yet the guilt exists, there is no doubt about it. Even if there were no other guilt than that of 6,000,000 clay urns; the ashes of burnt Jews from all over Europe. This guilt weighs heavily on the German people, on the German name, and on all Christendom. These things happened in our world and in our name... I regard myself as guilty as any SS man." [262]

Rev. Grueber, who himself suffered in a concentration camp because of his help rendered to Jews, said:

"In a few meetings of the Confessing Church a call to protest was given. But protests were made by the few, in comparison with the millions who co-operated or kept silent, who, at best, played the ostrich or clenched their fists in their pockets." [263] <113> The following is the opinion of Dr. Freudenberg, who was the Director of the World Council of Churches' Secretariat for Refugees, during the war:

"The attitude of the Christians, also of the adherents of the Confessing Church, towards the national-socialist persecution of the Jews, shows great weakness and uncertainty. The anti-Semitic outcry of the environment made a greater impression than the word of Jesus Christ, the Son of David... But even the apparently feeble witness of the Church demanded great confessional courage in the situation of that time. One wrestled to give many a witness, and one suffered when the right word at the right time was not given... It certainly is not accidental that even the Confessing Church, though offering determined resistance against the introduction of the Arierparagraph within the Church, only very hesitatingly made its stand against the anti-Semitic laws and the persecution of the Jews in the State... The fact that the policy of the State towards the Jews ultimately is the policy of the Church and that persecution of the Jews is persecution of Christ, was not acknowledged in time, and when finally it was made, it was far from adequate. Moreover, this policy was effectively veiled by the national-socialist methods of camouflage. At the beginning of the regime one simply could not believe that the rulers relentlessly pursued a plan for the annihilation of the Jews and the elimination of the Christian Church from public life... If we want to evaluate the documents correctly, we must always consider Hitler's incomprehensible terrorization in the Reich. It may disappoint us that the matter was not raised more often and more forcibly. We should, however, bear in mind under which circumstances speaking or keeping silent took place. We should keep in mind that only now, after all the atrocities have become known, has it become customary to make a categorical condemnation of national-socialism. But this phenomenon was, in general, judged quite differently, that is to say, much more positively, not only by the Germans but everywhere in the world, at the time when (some of) these documents were issued." [264]

The Evangelical Church in Germany herself, after the war, pleaded guilty, unequivocally and repeatedly. [265] The verdict seems obvious: even the Protestant group in Germany which resisted Hitler, totally failed when they should have stood up in the defence of the Jews. After all this has been said, however, something should be added. 1. The CONFESSING Church in Germany did speak out against anti-Semitism in 1936, and, indirectly, also in 1935 and 1938, when already this meant martyrdom. Churches in other lands, for instance in the Netherlands, did not speak out in those days. Many Churches outside Germany denounced anti- Semitism long before 1940, but it cost them little, if anything. <114> 2. The CONFESSING Church, when speaking on behalf of the Jews, spoke against its own Government and seemingly against national interests. Church leaders in countries occupied by the Germans also risked their lives when denouncing German anti-Semitism, but they spoke against the national enemy. Public declarations of Church leaders in Germany were used by foreign propaganda media against the Third Reich. [266] Fortunately, this served to open the eyes of many blind people outside Germany, but it certainly made things even more difficult for Church leaders in Germany: many of their compatriots regarded the issue of such declarations as an act of high-treason. 3. Guenter Lewy, discussing the attitude of the Roman-Catholic Church in Germany, states:

"The concern of the Gentile populations of these countries (France, the Netherlands and Belgium) for their Jewish fellow citizens was undoubtedly one of the key factors behind the bold public protests of the French, Dutch and Belgian bishops - just as the absence of such solicitude in Germany goes a long way toward explaining the apathy of their German counterparts." [267]

This is also applicable to the leaders of the CONFESSING Church. <115>

THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES

21 NORWAY

Only 1,700 Jews were living in Norway. In October 1940, the Jews were barred from certain professions. In June 1942, registration was ordered and in October confiscation of Jewish property was decreed. The Jews received identity cards stamped with the letter J; at the same time, arrests of Jews began. On October 25, 1942, all male Jews of sixteen and over were arrested and interned. On November 25, the women and children were seized. 770 Jews, including 100 refugees from Central Europe, were deported by boat to Stettin and thence to Auschwitz. The majority of Norwegian Jews (930) were smuggled to Sweden. [268]

The Constitution of Norway proclaims: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State". The majority of Government ministers must be members of the Church of Norway. Quisling had received the title of Minister-president on February 1, 1942. The Bishops of the Church of Norway decided unanimously, on February 24, 1942, to "cease administrative co-operation with a State which practices violence against the Church", although maintaining the right to exercise the spiritual vocation given them by ordination at the Lord's altar. On April 9, 1942, the Quisling authorities imprisoned Bishop Berggrav and four other Church leaders. Later on Bishop Berggrav returned from the concentration camp in which he was held, but remained under house arrest. <116> On November 11, 1942, the (Lutheran) Bishops of Norway sent a letter of Protest to the Minister President Quisling. This Protest was also signed by the Baptists, the Methodist Church, the Norwegian Mission Association, the Norwegian Mission Alliance, the Sunday School Union and the Salvation Army. Following is the text of the Protest:

"The Minister President's law, announced October 27, 1942, regarding the confiscation of property belonging to Jews have been received by our people with great sorrow, and was deepened by the decree that all Jewish men over 15 years of age were to be arrested. When now we appeal to the Minister President, it is not to defend whatever wrongs Jews may have committed; if they have committed crimes they should be tried, judged and punished according to Norwegian law, just as all other citizens. But those who have committed no crime should enjoy the protection of our country's justice. For 91 years Jews have had a legal right to reside and to earn a livelihood in our country. Now they are being deprived of their property without warning; men were being arrested and thus prevented from providing for their property- less wives and children. This not only conflicts with the Christian commandment to 'love thy neighbour', but with the most elemental of legal rights. Jews have not been charged with transgression of the country's laws, much less convicted of such transgressions by judicial procedure. Nevertheless, they are being punished as severely as the worst criminals are punished. They are being punished because of their racial background, wholly and solely because they are Jews. This disaffirmation by the authorities of the Jews' worth as human beings is in sharp conflict with the Word of God which from cover to cover proclaims all racial groups to be of one blood. See particularly Acts 17, 26. There are few references where God's Word speaks more plainly than here. God does not differentiate among people. Romans 2, 11. There is neither Jew nor Greek. Galatians 3, 28. There is no difference. Romans 3, 22. Above else: When God through incarnation became man, He allowed Himself to be born in a Jewish home of a Jewish mother. Thus, according to God's Word, all people have, in the first instance, the same human worth and thereby the same human rights. Our state authorities are by law obliged to respect this basic view. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that the Evangelical Lutheran religion will remain the religion of the State. That is to say, the State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession. When now we appeal to the authorities in this matter we do so because of the deepest dictates of conscience. To remain silent about this legalized injustice against the Jews, would render ourselves co-guilty in this injustice. If we are to be true to God's Word and to the Church's Confession we must speak out. <117> Regarding worldly authority, our Confession states that it has nothing to do with the soul but that it shall 'protect the bodies and corporal things against obvious injustice, and keep the people in check in order to maintain civic peace and order'. (Augustana, Article 28). This corresponds with God's Word which says the authority is of God and established by him, not as a terror to good works, but to the evil. Romans 13, 3. If the worldly authority becomes a terror to good works, that is, to the one who does not transgress against the country's laws, then it is the Church's God-given duty as the conscience of the State to object. The Church, namely, has God's call and full authority to proclaim God's law and God's gospel. Therefore it cannot remain silent when God's commandments are being trampled underfoot. One of Christianity's basic values now is being violated: the commandments of God which are fundamental to all society, namely law and justice. One cannot dismiss the Church with a charge that it is mixing into politics. The apostles courageously spoke to the authorities of their day and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men'. Acts 5, 29. Luther says: 'The Church does not interfere in worldly matters when it warns the authority to be obedient to the highest authority, which is God'. By the right of our calling we therefore warn our people to desist from injustice, violence and hatred. He who lives in hatred and encourages evil invokes God's judgment upon himself. The Minister President has on several occasions emphasized that Nasjonal Samling, according to its program, will safeguard the basic values of Christianity. To-day one of these values is in danger. If it is to be protected, it must be protected soon. We have mentioned it before, but re-emphasize it now in closing: This appeal of ours has nothing to do with politics. Before worldly authority we maintain that obedience in all temporal matters which God's Word demands." [269]

The close relationship between Church and State in Norway is reflected in the protest: "The State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession".

Important is the reference to Luther; the attitude of the Lutheran Churches in Germany has been explained by recalling Luther's conception of the two dominions through which God rules this world: the spiritual one, or the Church, and the secular one, or the "worldly authorities". The people, according to Luther, have not the right to resist the authorities; only princes have. <118>

The Lutheran Church of Norway, however, quoted the Confession (Augustana) and Luther, in order to stress that it was "the Church's God-given duty as the conscience of the State to object" (to the anti-Semitic measures).

The letter of Protest won response throughout the country. It was read in the churches on the 6th and 13th December, 1942. It was also noted outside the borders of the country. The Swedish newspapers quoted it in full. The Swedish Lutheran Bishops referred to it in a pastoral letter which they issued at the beginning of December. [270] In radio London the Protest was quoted in full. "Breaking the wall of silence" did not help much, if at all, the Jews of Norway; but it warned people in Sweden and Denmark, so that they were on their guard when the Germans tried to apply their 'final solution' to the Jewish community in Denmark.

Naturally enough, the attitude taken up by the Christians earned them fresh attacks from the Quisling followers. On December 30, 1942, the Trondheim paper Adresseavisen concluded an editorial on the 'detrimental Jewish influence' in Norway with these words:

"... But now all this is forgotten. On Boxing day the Norwegian clergy read a new pastoral letter from the pulpits, glorifying the Jews and their activities, sighing and lamenting because the chosen race of Israel is not allowed to pursue its activities among the Norwegian people as before, but must be held responsible for its actions." [271]

Nevertheless, in a New Year's message for 1943, which was read from the pulpits throughout the country, the Provisional Church Council boldly declared that it would continue to fight Nazism to the end. The Council called upon the congregations to pray for imprisoned clergymen and persecuted Jews. It added:

"The appeal which the Norwegian Church and the Christian people recently sent to the Minister President on account of the atrocious treatment of the Jews, has not yet been answered. In this case we have clearly seen what may happen when God's words concerning the worth of man and love are being trampled underfoot." [272] <119>

22 THE NETHERLANDS

a. The Preliminary Phase

On May 14, 1940, the Dutch army surrendered to the Germans. Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner to the Netherlands; Rauter was Chief of Police and Security; General Christiansen was head of the military administration. The political situation in the Netherlands was better than in occupied Poland and Bohemia, but worse than that in most of the other occupied countries, such as Denmark. The Queen and the Cabinet were in exile. The German rulers in the Netherlands were ruthless and efficient. In October, 1940, the first anti-Jewish decrees were promulgated. In November, Jews were dismissed from public posts. On January 10, 1941, the decree ordering registration of the Jews was signed. On February 9, 1941, the first raid on the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam was made. On February 25, 1941, a general protest-strike was declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed transport and industry, spreading to other districts. It was suppressed by force within three days. In May, 1941, the Jews were banned from parks and places of public amusement. In July, 1941, identity cards of Jews were stamped with the letter J. Between January and April of 1942, thousands of Jews were deported to labour camps. After May, 1942, the Jews had to wear the yellow star.' [273] There are people who believe that the record of Dutch resistance against National-Socialism is outstanding and that the majority of the population was engaged in rescue activities on behalf of the Jews. To those who believe this, the reading of Dr. J. Presser's book "Destruction" must be a shattering experience.

On June 20, 1940, the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH [274] invited seven other Protestant Churches to a consultation. <120>

The Churches invited were: The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, the Christian Reformed Church, the Re-united Reformed Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Re-united Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Brotherhood of Remonstrants and the Society of Mennonites. Representatives of these Churches convened for the first time on June 25, 1940. A "Council of Churches" was established, and later on, became known as the "Inter- Church Consultation". [275] Most of the public protests were issued by this Council.

Particularly at the beginning, the attitude of several members of the "Council of Churches" showed a lack of determination. One of the factors that led the Council, as well as the Churches themselves, to a more determined attitude, was the influence of the "Circle of Lunteren". This group, consisting of ministers belonging to different Churches but mainly to the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, had followed the plight of the Confessing Church in Germany with deep sympathy; many of them were influenced by the clear stand and the teachings of Prof. Karl Barth. [276] The "Circle of Lunteren" secretly met for the first time in the village of Lunteren, on August 22, 1940. A letter was sent to the Synodal Committee of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, urging the Church to give clear advice to the local churches and to the nation at large, especially regarding increasing anti-Semitic propaganda. [276] The reply of the Synodal Committee, however, was both reserved and evasive. [277]

The "Circle of Lunteren" also published clandestine brochures; 50,000 copies of the brochure "Almost too late" were distributed. It was written by Rev. J. Koopmans. He spoke of the danger of following new Messiahs, instead of the Messiah who came "not from our race, but from the much hated Jewish race". <121> He especially mentioned the fact that people in official posts were commanded to sign a document stating that they were "Aryan", and that the vast majority of those concerned had signed it, perhaps not even realizing its implications for the Jews. [278] Rev. Koopmans pointed out that it was a grave mistake to sign the document, and since many people had already signed it, indeed it was "almost too late". Therefore quick action should be taken if it would not be too late altogether. Everyone should explicitly declare that he would not take part in the expulsion of the Jews from public life. The pamphlet closed with the words:

"Dutchmen, it is almost too late, but still not too late! It is still not too late to return to the Christian faith and to a clear conscience. It is still not too late to stand up for our Jewish compatriots, for the sake of mercy and on the grounds of Holy Scripture. It is still not too late to show the Germans that their wickedness has not overcome everything, but that there are people who are determined not to be robbed in this way of their Christian faith and their clear conscience." [279]

Someone was caught distributing this brochure; he was sentenced by a German judge to one and a half year imprisonment. [280] Another clandestine pamphlet was published by the "Circle of Lunteren": "What we believe and what we do not believe". It was written in the summer of 1941 and widely distributed. We quote the following:

"Therefore we believe that he who stands up against Israel, stands up against the God of Israel... Therefore we believe anti-Semitism to be something much more serious than an inhuman racial theory. We believe it to be one of the most stubborn and most deadly forms of rebellion against the holy and merciful God whose name we confess." [281] <122> On October 24, 1940, the Protestant Churches sent a letter to the Reich Commissioner for occupied Holland, protesting against the discriminatory regulations against Jewish officials. The letter reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, representing the following Protestant Churches in questions regarding the relations between the Church and the civil authority: The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH; the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands; the Christian Reformed Church; the Re-united Reformed Church; the Brotherhood of Remonstrants; the Society of Mennonites, feel impelled to appeal to your Excellency in view of the regulations recently issued forbidding the appointment or promotion in the Netherlands of officials or other persons of Jewish blood. In our view the spirit of these regulations, which bear in a special way upon important spiritual questions, is contradictory to Christian mercy. Moreover, these regulations also effect members of the Church itself insofar as they have adopted the Christian faith in recent generations and who have been received as perfect equals into the Churches, as is expressly demanded by the Holy Scripture (Rom. 10, 12; Gal. 3, 28). Finally, the Churches are deeply concerned since this affects the people from whom came the Saviour of the world, and for whom all Christians intercede that they may recognize in Him their Lord and King. For these reasons we urgently appeal to your Excellency to induce the authorities to abolish the said regulations. Moreover, we refer to your Excellency's solemn promise to respect our national character and to refrain from enforcing on us any ideology alien to us." [283]

As the Boards of both the Lutheran Churches refused to associate their Churches with this protest, it was only submitted on behalf of six of the eight Protestant Churches. The text was made public in an abbreviated form on Sunday, October 27, in most of the churches. However, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church did not make the protest public to their congregations. Therefore Prof. H. H. Kuyper, who was the representative of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, was sharply criticized and some of the other members of the Council refused to co-operate with him further. He then resigned on account of his "deafness", and another was appointed in his place. [284] <123> On January 10, 1941, the decree ordering registration of the Jews was signed by Seyss-Inquart. On February 9, 1941, a general protest-strike was declared in Amsterdam which paralyzed transport and industry, spreading to other districts. It was suppressed by force in three days.

The next protest of the Churches was a letter, dated March 5, 1941, and sent to the Assembly of General Secretaries (an Assembly which, in the absence of the Ministers of State, represented the supreme Dutch authority in the Netherlands). The Evangelical Lutheran Church also signed this protest; thus seven Protestant Churches participated in this action. Here follows the text:

"The Churches are deeply distressed about the development of events, which is becoming increasingly clear. The proclamation of the Word of God entrusted to the Church charges us with the express duty to make its stand for right and justice, truth and love. It must raise its voice when these values are threatened or attacked in public life. The fact that these values are being seriously threatened cannot be denied by anyone who observes the present situation of our nation. Clear symptoms of this state of affairs which not only weighs as a heavy burden on the conscience of our fellow citizens but is also, according to the deep conviction of the Church, contrary to the Word of God, are incidents in the public street and the treatment to which the Jewish part of the Dutch population is being increasingly subjected. There is growing insecurity in the administration of justice and a continual attack on the freedom indispensable to the fulfilment of Christian duties. For this reason the Churches deem it their duty to request the Assembly most urgently to employ all means at its disposal to ensure that also at this time, justice, truth and mercy may be guiding principles of Government action. The Churches humbly consider it their bounden duty to influence the lives of the people as to inculcate in them these spiritual values. We trust that you will be prepared to pass on the word of the Churches as expressed in this document in any way you deem expedient to those who, in the present period of occupation, bear the ultimate responsibility for the course of events in our country. We fully realize the extremely difficult task which faces the Assembly at this juncture, and we pray God that He may give it His light and His help." [285] <124> The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the nature and contents of this letter by a short announcement from the pulpits. The necessary circulars had been prepared in time for the reading of the declaration on Sunday, March 23, 1941. But on March 20, the secretary of the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH and the Chairman of the "Council of Churches" were arrested. The authorities were sure that the reading of the declaration would become the signal for an insurrection and that the Churches would be responsible for a disturbance of public order. When it was shown that this was a misunderstanding, the two representatives of the Churches were released. To show that the Churches had not intended political action, the pastors who could still be contacted were asked not to read the letter from the pulpit. Thus it was only read in those towns and villages which did not receive the counter-order until too late. [286]

On March 23, 1941, a Pastoral Letter of the General Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands was read from the pulpits. We cite the following:

"In our time the notion is advanced with ever increasing emphasis that it is not personal relationship to God's Name but belonging to a certain people or race which determines the meaning of a person's life and which divides mankind into distinct divisions. You will always be able to give the right answer to this doctrine (which has already been accepted by many) if you are faithful to the Holy Scripture. In repudiation of this doctrine the Church should not present its own ideas but only convey the powerful Word of God. You have already shared the anxiety which has filled the hearts of so many of our compatriots in recent months. This is a matter of course because, as the Church of Christ well knows from the Gospels, it was in the course of the history of the Jewish people that Christ was born. Therefore the fact of belonging to a special race must never limit our love towards our neighbour, nor the mercy that we owe him." [287]

On January 5, 1942, delegates of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches together applied to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Justice for an interview with the Reich Commissioner, Seyss-Inquart. <125>

This was the first time in Dutch history that the Protestant and Catholic Churches acted together and signed a document of protest. Moreover, this was a unique proceeding in occupied Europe and considerably increased the impact of the protests. The National-Socialist daily "Volk en Vaderland" commented:

"What God has been unable to achieve for centuries, the Jewish star has achieved. Churches which were never able to unite for the greater glory of God, now conduct a united action." [288]

An interview was arranged for February 17, 1942. Two delegates of the Protestant Churches and one from the Roman Catholic Church submitted a translation into German of the Memorandum to the Reich Commissioner which had previously been given to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, who had already passed on a copy to Seyss-Inquart. In handing over the document the delegates declared that they were speaking in the name of the entire Christian Church of the Netherlands. We quote the following:

"Then the treatment of people of Jewish origin must be mentioned. At the moment the Churches do not offer judgment on anti-Semitism which, incidentally, they reject utterly on Christian grounds; nor do they wish to initiate a discussion on the political measures taken against the Jews in general. They wish to confine themselves to the fact that a large number of Jews were arrested in the course of the year 1941 and deported, and that since then an alarmingly large number of official announcements of death among these deportees has been received. The Churches would be neglecting their elementary duty if they did not insist that the authorities should put an end to these measures. This is a duty of Christian mercy." [289]

Prof. Aalders, one of the spokesmen, then gave an oral explanation of the Memorandum. In his reply the Reich Commissioner said:

"... In our treatment of the Jews there can be no talk of mercy; only, at best, of justice. The Jewish problem will be solved by the Germans and no distinction will be made between Jews and Jews..." [290] <126>

The results of the interview were negative. Shortly afterwards, Prof. Aalders was arrested. The Churches intended to inform all the congregations of the interview from their pulpits. The German security service, however, threatened heavy punishment, if this intention were carried out. The DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH protested against this in a letter sent to Seyss-Inquart, dated March 17, 1942. [291] Moreover, a short message was read from the pulpits on April 19, 1942:

"... The Church has protested against the lawlessness and cruelty to which those of Jewish faith in our nation are being subjected and against the attempt to enforce a national-socialist philosophy of life which stands in direct contradiction to the Gospel..." [292]

A full report was sent to all local Church councils, at the same time.

A decree, which initially did not seem so dangerous, actually resulted from the desire to isolate the Jews from other Dutchmen in order to exterminate them more easily. It was the regulation to place a notice "Forbidden to Jews" on public gardens, public baths and cinemas. At the beginning of 1942 it was ordered that such a notice must be placed on all public buildings. The Churches refused to obey this order:

"It is absolutely forbidden to place the notice on any church building or on premises used by the Church. On a building with Christian purposes the notice in question cannot be permitted as a matter of principle, because it would be a denial of the Gospel."

In some church buildings concerts were held, which required placing the notice. But the advice of the leaders of the Church was, that in such cases the concerts must be cancelled. The advice to sports clubs which were compelled to display the notice was: "For reasons of principle there is no other way but to stop the activities". [293] Many ministers of religion were fined or imprisoned because of their refusal to display this notice. <127>

b. Mass Deportation

Mass deportations of Jews began in June, 1942. The Jews were assembled in Westerbork camp; trains to the extermination camps in Poland left every week. The last large-scale deportations were in the spring and summer of 1943. In January, 1941, there were 160,000 Jews in the Netherlands, of whom 138,000 were Dutch citizens, and 22,000 foreign Jews. At least 104,000 of them were murdered.

After the systematic rounding up of Jews had started in Amsterdam, the representative of the Remonstrant Fraternity proposed to the Council of Churches, to turn the "New Church", in the centre of Amsterdam, into a house of refuge for persecuted Jews, and that attired in their robes of office the ministers of the different Churches should occupy the entrances of the church and stand or fall with the Jews in the church.

The proposal was not accepted. The majority of the Council believed that it would be a sublime but useless gesture which might well cause a bloodbath and at the very least an acceleration of deportations. [294] The Council decided, however, to send a telegram of protest to Seyss-Inquart, to General Christiansen, and to the two German General-Commissioners Rauter and Schmidt. The telegram read as follows:

"Dismayed by the measures that have been taken against the Jews in the Netherlands by excluding them from participation in the normal life of the community, the undersigned Churches have now learnt, with horror, of the new measures whereby men, women and children, as well as whole families, are being deported to Germany or countries now subservient to it. The suffering which this brings to tens of thousands, the recognition that these measures offend the deepest moral sense of the Dutch people, the opposition to God's laws of justice and mercy, all this forces us to address to you the most urgent plea not to implement these measures. Moreover, as far as Christians of Jewish origin are concerned this plea is strengthened by the fact that they have been debarred by this decree from participation in the life of the church." [295] <128>

Thereupon the Germans offered a concession. They declared their readiness not to deport Christians of Jewish origin. On the other hand, they made it clear that the sending of the telegram of protest had better not be made public during church services. This was accepted by the General Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH. The Synod considered that "among decent people one party does not publish any document if the other party objects". Another important argument was the fear that all that had been gained in favour of the Christians of Jewish origin might be lost. [296] None of the other Protestant Churches followed the example of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, nor did the Catholic Bishops. [297] The Germans took their revenge: all Roman Catholics of Jewish origin (amongst whom was the philosopher Edith Stein) were deported, on July 26, 1942, and perished, while most of the Protestants of Jewish origin survived. On September 24, 1942, Rauter wrote to Himmler:

"... Since my last report the Catholics among the Christian Jews have been deported because the five Bishops, with Archbishop de Jong of Utrecht at their head, did not abide by our original agreements. The Protestant Jews are still here, and attempts to break through the united front presented by the Catholic and Protestant Churches have indeed been successful. Archbishop de Jong declared at a Conference of Bishops that he would never again form a united front with the Calvinists and other Protestants. The storm of protest raised by the Churches when the evacuation began has thus been greatly undermined and has now subsided..." [298] <129>

Rev. H.C. Touw, the historian of the resistance of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, asked the questions:

"Did the Synod take the right decision? Or did it succumb to a satanic temptation? Was it unfaithful to its Lord in order to save the lives of its own members?" [299]

The question of choosing between "quiet diplomacy" and public protest now seems to be easy: negotiations with the devil are senseless. We should not forget, however, that Church leaders who issued a public protest not only took considerable personal risks, but also took upon themselves the responsibility for endangering the freedom and life of others. Noteworthy is the opinion of a group of Christians of Jewish origin who addressed themselves to the Synod of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:

"Be assured that - if the proclamation of the Word of God (concerning the persecution of Jews) needs to be more clearly emphasized at this time - those among us who truly belong to the Lord are willing to be deported to Poland, confidently trusting in the lord." [300]

In the summer of 1942, regular contact was established between Protestants in Holland and Dr. Visser 't Hooft, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva. Couriers brought copies of protests of the Churches (and much other information) in microfilm to Geneva, Dr. Visser 't Hooft sent the microfilms to the Dutch Government in London.

The Churches expressed themselves again in a protest which was sent to Seyss-Inquart on February 17, 1943, and which was read from the pulpits in all the churches. We quote from this protest the following:

"The Churches would be culpable if they failed to point out to the authorities the sins they committed in the execution of their authority, and if they failed to warn them of God's judgment. The Churches have already drawn your attention to the increasing lawlessness, the persecution unto death of Jewish compatriots... <130> But it is also the duty of the Churches to preach this Word of God: 'We ought to obey God rather than men'. This commandment is the touchstone in all conflicts of conscience, also in those that arise out of the recently taken steps. Because of God's justice, no one may participate in unjust actions since thereby he would become equally guilty of injustice." [301]

It was important that this protest was read out in all the local churches for it frequently happened that Dutch police agents were ordered to arrest Jews and others. The Churches thus warned the faithful that "no one may participate in unjust actions". [302]